By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN)–Famed TV scientist Bill Nye is slamming creationism in a new online video for Big Think titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children."
"Denial of evolution is unique to the United States," Nye begins in a YouTube video posted on Thursday. The video quickly picked up steam over the weekend and as of Monday morning had been viewed more than 1,100,000 times.
Nye – a mechanical engineer and television personality best known for his program, "Bill Nye the Science Guy" – said the United States has great capital in scientific knowledge and "when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it, it holds everyone back."
"Your world becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution," Nye said in the Web video.
Creationists are a vast and varied group in the United States. Most creationists believe in the account of the origins of the world as told in the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
In the creation account, God creates Adam and Eve, the world, and everything in it in six days.
For Christians who read the Genesis account literally, or authoritatively as they would say, the six days in the account are literal 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for the past 30 years. In June it released its latest findings, which showed 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.
During the 30 years Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye said in the video.
"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems," he said.
Creationists' beliefs about the origins of the Earth are often a narrow focus, based in large part on religious beliefs, and while they reject evolution as "just one theory," they often embrace other fields of science and technology.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
In "The Genesis Flood," the 1961 book that in many ways help launch the Young Earth creationism movement in the United States, the authors write: “Our conclusions must unavoidably be colored by our Biblical presuppositions, and this we plainly acknowledge." Their goal for the book was to harmonize the scientific evidence with the accounts in Genesis of creation and the flood.
The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.
"In another couple centuries I'm sure that worldview won't even exist. There's no evidence for it. So..." Nye ends his video.
Humans observe fossils and other geological data and ask: Where did the fossils come from? Humans also observe that they have free will and ask: What is the relationship between myself and my body? Rational people judge the theory that life evolved over a period of 3.5 billion years to be true. Rational people also judge the theory that free will is an illusion to be false. Most people who "believe in evolution" are atheists and think that free will is an illusion.
@roemer: atheist are aware humans have free will, the ability to choose what path we take in life. atheist/theist come to a disagreement when theists state that god is all knowing, but permit humans to choose.
an all knowing god would already know what it is you will choose, thus your take on free will wouldn't exsist because whatever you did god would have known long before you were ever born that you make every choice you have ever made or ever will make; kindof like me having a map and giving someone directions but at the same time telling them you choose where to go. knowing all and free will don't go hand in hand; not to mention if god does know all but still permits a crasy guy with a weapon to massacre people in a movie theater then he is all powerful because he knew that person would commit such a crime and still allowed him to exsist.
Having free will (the ability to make choices) is not denied by scientists, so I don't know where you are getting your info from. However all of our decisions are made under the constraints of personal knowledge, experience, and complex brain functioning.
Who pay the scientists?
On that's right they do their work for free and the love of their fellow man!
That's why 90% of them are involved in mass destruction, that's where the money is. But they are not bias or corruptable??!
Excellent point, Paul.
Don't you know?! Scientists are incorruptible secular saints, benevolent agents of truth and light who would NEVER EVER let their work be affected by politics, power, money, or worldview! ;)
'Scientists' are paid by universities, governments, private industry, trust funds, private and public grants, or make money themselves off inventions or other employment. Your argument seems to imply that because scientists make money, they are therefore corrupt. This is as laughable and illogical a claim as I have ever seen.
Firstly, world 'scientists' are paid by hundreds of thousands of different, unconnected agencies in different countries. Are all of them in on your unevidenced grand conspiracy?
Secondly, the priests of the catholic church are ALL paid from one single central authority. Just one.The same authority which depends on its single, unscientific message for its livelyhood. Who would you say is more prone to corruption?
Thirdly, no, 90% of scientists dont work on 'destruction'. What a silly claim. In fact very few scientists work on weapons and 'destruction' (thats mostly engineers). likely a fraction of a single percent of the world's scientific population.
Fourthly, scientists in an academic environment get somethijng called 'tenure'. It means they cannot be fired for proposing ideas against the orthodoxy, or investigating controvercial subjects. In other words, they remain largely uncorruptable. The faithful on the other hand, can be fired, excluded or even excommunicated for daring to question their orthodoxy.
In other words, try thinking for once in your life. If you can.
Who pays then for the creationists? I think that if you check into their supporters you'll find rich donors funding things like creation museums and anti-evolution textbooks. It's a regular conspiracy to spread misinformation.
Of course research scientists are all working towards perfecting the Ultimate Doomsday Device.
Neuroscientists have been finding ways to control your mind through RF frequencies in order to keep you from achieving your full potential.
Fortunately, haberdashery constructed of common aluminium foil is capable of blocking their transmissions.
We have no viable defense against the evil agenda of the global cabal of theoretical physicists.
Soon they'll force atheism on the entire world by threatening to create a black hole with the Large Hadron Collider.
Anyone who prays will find their home collapsed into a singularity.
Paul, please provide a source to back up your as.sertion that 90% of scientists are involved in mass destruction. This is nothing but a shameless, baseless smear attack.
As for getting paid, scientists have just as much right to get paid for their considerable efforts as the rest of us, and to use this against them is completely disingenuous.
Of course, many people are corruptible. However, your comment suggests that virtually no scientists can really be trusted because they MIGHT be biased or corrupt. This is playground stuff; blatant stereotyping. You apparently cannot address actual facts, so you attack a group of hundreds of thousands of people you don't even know instead.
Paul, did you even think before you typed our your little baseless attack? Or is this childishness all you have? Or maybe you're just a troll, because an intelligent person wouldn't have bothered even writing such nonsense.
Everyone has bias. No one denies that, especially scientists. That was why the scientific method was adopted- to reduce bias error.
It was said earlier, “We can expect to see more of this twisting and reshaping of bible mythology to fit new scientific discoveries in the future.”
No reshaping or twisting of the Bible is involved. The truth has been around for over 2 thousand years. The apostle Paul spoke of entering into Gods rest in his day. Try reading Hebrews chapter 4.
The fact is God rested on the seventh day of creation. According to Paul we can still enter into his rest. So no twisting, just the facts. The seventh day, of God’s rest, we are still living in it over 6 thousand years later from the end of the 6th creative day in which God created Adam and Eve.
So the fact is, a creative day is at least six thousand years long. Science has verified the truth of this. Science has not proved the Bible wrong, but rather proves that the Bible is true and some mislead Christians have got it wrong about the length of a creative day.
It’s like picking on a scientist who got it wrong and therefore all scientists are wrong. Not true and this is also true with regard to some who claim to be Christians and get it wrong.
you sure seem to have an issue confusing opinions for facts
how has science proven that a "creative day" is 6,000 years long?
do you have a citation for that, or did you pull it out of your a$$?
Wow, Paul, how is that you have this figured out? When was it that God spoke to you and clearly articulated all of this? Or is it that you just crammed observation into a convenient narrative that allows you to maintain your worldview? You do realize that there is nothing, not one thing, in the way of evidence to support what you've claimed, right? I just don't understand how people can be so unable to step outside of their belief structure even for a moment and see how it looks to others who don't share those beliefs. If you could do this, you would see a desperate bias to maintain your worldview in light of each new discovery we make.
Religion is like a penis: It's great if you have one, it's great if you have fun with it, but don't wave it around in public or shove it down children's throat!
You forgot to mention that most that comes out of it is just pi$$.
Many Scientific researchers lie. Doctors, Nurses, Xray techs and MRI techs and other medical personnel lie. Pharmaceutical companies lie. FDA is comprised of persons who have financial interests in Big Pharma companies so they lie. Vaccine makers lie, lots of people lie. So if you want to believe in "Science" how do you know when you are or are not being lied to ?
Name one verifiable lie by a scientific researcher. Remember, it has to be verifiable, not some bullshit from your imagination.
You can find liars anywhere. If you are looking for lying hypocrites, Christians are often a great example.
What was your point?
You're sort of missing the whole "peer reviewed" thing.......
I have a bridge to sell to you.And it comes with a free tinfoil hat!
... and preachers, pastors, and "men of the cloth" don't lie Sheila? Many (fi not most) have a financial interest in maintaining a large congregation, and it's NOT for "Gods" purposes either. After all, those mega churches, and multiple million dollar vacation homes those pastors own have to be paid for somehow... right?
Hey psycho. Your preacher is lying.
Sheila you really do need to do more Bible research.
May I suggest you read Hebrews, particularly chapters 3 to 5. Paul talks about us entering his rest. This rest started after the creation of Adam and Eve, the seventh day. Paul reasoned that we could enter into God's rest period. Since Adams creation it has been over six thousand years now. So the creative days are much longer than 24 hours.
Speaking of a creative day as 24hrs is not scripturally or scientifically accurate.
paul: show us where science has commented at all on what a "creative day" consists of. if you have a point, make it. if you don't, you are twisting to justify your belief under the cloak of science
Come on, Paul, answer the question.
And many preachers lie. They lie about not being gay personally, about not abusing children and about church finances. Both the lying preachers and the dishonest scientists do not mean that all of them can't be trusted. If it did, why would you ever walk into a church, or take another prescription drug again?
Apparently, Paul's faith is so weak that he needs to make up "facts" to cloak it under the mantle of science. Creative day, indeed.
You study and verify the science yourself. That's the nice thing about science anyone with the right knowledge and tools can do it.
If religious leaders, on the other hand, lie how can you tell?
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)
Clearly, the author of this part of Exodus understood that a "day" was the same period of time for both God making his creation and Jews living out their weeks, correct?
And that's why the scientific method was adopted. My god- don't they teach this stuff in school anymore?????
"My god- don't they teach this stuff in school anymore?????"
Unfortunately there is an epidemic of home schooling largely in bible belt regions where the parents feel strongly that facts and their faith don't mix so they keep the facts out of their childrens education.
Science Slams: For the record, I home schooled my daughter for a while when No Child Left Behind cut science and social science from the grade schools in her district. There are a growing number of home schoolers who actually do it to improve their child's education. ; )
I wonder why my posts are never displayed? And who is Tony Montana? Oh well, maybe this one will display because it doesn't have any meat in it.
Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
ho-oters…as in sho-oters
ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
p-orn… as in p-ornography
pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).
Thanks a bunch for this post. I am mad every time my posts get "screened" because I put some buzzwords in like Je-sus or Mo-Ham-Med :) You made my day dude!
Holy Bible Book of Job Chapter 38:
Really? Put your buybull down.
One pink elephant cannot be used to justify, explain, or legitimize another pink elephant. After all, they're BOTH pink elephants. You cannot use the bible or scripture to explain itself (or anything else in the tangible real world), it's like using a lie to legitimize another lie. FAIL.
Job 38 states that God "laid the earth’s foundation", set "its footings", "laid its cornerstone", "shut up the sea behind doors", and "tip(s) over the water jars of the heavens." Does this sound to you like the Earth we now understand, or just the ancient, poetic understanding of the Earth?
Thank you for proving Mr. Nye's point, Sheila. Creationism is bad because it encourages people to be ignorant.
The theory of evolution is the best explanation Science has for our existence based current knowledge, current understanding current proof. Right? But if Science is about correcting itself and test itself, doesn't that mean its plausible that it can be corrected or completely rewritten as time goes by and new discoveries are made?
Some new discovery would have to explain why the mountain of different types of supporting evidence for evolution all fails, and that seems too improbable to be even remotely likely. Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree with that argument.
Possible? yes. Proable? No.
Similar to what Len stated, there is so much confirmatory evidence for evolution that the likelihood that another significantly different theory would explain how life developed better than the Theory of Evolution is, I think, exceedingly small.
" its plausible that it can be corrected or completely rewritten as time goes by and new discoveries are made?" Yes, dear, we may decide gravity is a myth and that we are all actually floating. Don't look for this to happen anytime soon. The computer you are using to post this actually works, right? The rest is also true,
Of course- how often is the Creation Myth amended to fit new research? That's the fundamental difference between science and religion: science is meant to be questioned and religion is meant to accepted regardless of the the evidence.
Having said that, much of evolutionary theory includes observable facts- such as the process of natural selection. We might learn more about that process, but it's an observable fact that it happens.
There are some key assumptions about many dating methods that are often overlooked. For example, radiometric dating uses these two things: 1) the amount of a given element, both parent and daughter in a sample at a given time; and 2) the half-life of a given radiometric decay rate at a particular point in time in a lab environment. However, to extrapolate into the unknown past requires three main unprovable assumptions.
Initial conditions—it is assumed that when the rock was formed only the parent element (e.g. Potassium, Uranium, etc.) was present, and there was no daughter element (e.g. Argon, Lead) present;
Closed system—it is assumed that within any given sample, no parent or daughter elements ever entered or left the sample;
Constant Rate—it is assumed that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.
What evidence is there that any or all of these three assumptions are true?
None of these potential errors could make 10,000 years appear to be over 1,000,000,000 years.
If you can't accurately date fossils you can't prove evolution. And don't try to complete dodge the implications.
Duker: excellent points regarding the flaws of radiometric dating. You have touched on one of the "sacred sacraments" of secularism. Theory of Evolution requires time, and a lot of it. To accomadate this need for time, proponents of ToE rely on a series of natural "clocks" found throughout the universe, such as radiometric dating, distant starlight, and the formation and state of stellar structures (stars, galaxies, etc). Using those natural clocks to "prove" the billions of years needed by ToE requires one to have a strong faith in uniformitarianism (in other words, that nature has always functioned the same way everywhere in the universe).
Again, it requires a LOT of faith to believe that all natural processes in all places have always worked the same way for billions and billions of years. Just assuming uniforitatrianism doesn't prove uniformitariansim. As Duker pointed out, for radiometric dating data to be accurate, the observer would need to know the initial state of matter, whether or not the sample was part of an open or closed system, and whether or not anything affected the sample's rate of decay.
Regarding decay rate, for example, solar activity is now known to change nuclear decay rates on Earth, such as the rate of manganese 54 decaying to chromium 54. Researchers at Purdue university are using this discovery to develop a solar flare early detection system, which detects changes in the manganese 54 decay rate to warn of solar flares around 1 day before they reach the Earth.
Athy wrote: "None of these potential errors could make 10,000 years appear to be over 1,000,000,000 years." This statement is simply false.
Case in point: when heated to plasma, bare nuclei of rhenium radioisotopes decay a BILLION times faster than normal.
Unfortunately, naturalists, secularists, and other ToE proponents simply accept radiometric dating as rock-solid, settled science instead of admitting to flaws which are lethal to their worldview.
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that at the time when men and dinosaurs co-existed, the earth was in a plasma-like, or near plasma-like state, and that would explain the apparent age of the fossils discovered?
the_dude wrote, "If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that at the time when men and dinosaurs co-existed, the earth was in a plasma-like, or near plasma-like state, and that would explain the apparent age of the fossils discovered?"
No, sir, that is not what I was suggesting.
What I did was demonstrate that nuclear decay rates are variable, not constant, and thus age determined by isotopic clocks are not trustworthy.
You cannot accurately date a sample without knowing 1) its initial state, 2) the lifetime of its status as an open or closed system, and 3) the entire history of exposure to anything which may change the sample's nuclear decay rate.
We already know that solar activity and temperature can effect nuclear decay rates (in fact, there are other ways this rate can be changed). We have observed variation within our own lifetimes, so why would we assume a constant extrapolated back BILLIONS of years? We obviously don't know all there is to know, and yet secularists, evolutionists, and other old-age-universe proponents claim that their dating methodolgies are rock-solid and produce reliable results.
That smacks more of religious faith than objective science.
Why is it that science deniers are always looking for 'proofs' and 'truth'. Science claims no such things. The foundations of radiometric dating are solid – do you think no one has considered the validity of these assumptions before? Please! The question that you should be asking yourself is how likely are these assumptions to be true and are the assumptions reasonable based upon independent observation. The human/dinosaur comparison was a good one.
And really, if you're questioning the rates of radioactive decay, you don't understand the relative rates of change in the decay based upon external factors when compared with the rates necessary for establishing dates on the order of evolutionary time scales. Have you not considered that the confidence with which dates are made reflect this? It's not like anyone is trying to use radiometric dating to determine, to the month, when a particular dinosaur lived.
Mahebb and Duker are *nailing* the old-earthers....
Let's see a scientific response to their science-based comments; or will you merely fall back on ad hominem?
@*facepalm*: You say their math fails, therefore it is your responsibility to point out the math-failures.
Show the math – ok?
b4 – radiometric dating uses a number of different isotopes to establish time frames. To make the assumptions of such dating invalid, a process would have had to occur at regular intervals and uniformly over and throughout the earth so as to modify decay rates of various isotopes in the same way. If you have any knowledge of nuclear science at all, you'd realize that this is absurd. The only argument a young earth creationist could postulate here is that god is intentionally trying to trick us, which pretty much makes him(her/it) sadistic.
Yes, decay rates of isotopes can vary slightly. The example was given of the changing decay rate of magnesium. the actual paper notes that this change is seasonal – thus the rate of decay over a large period of time would remain unchanged. It also notes that this variation is extremely small – generally less than one percent. Given that half-lives of isotopes used in radiometric dating are on the order of billions of years, estimates might be off by a few million years at most – not by hundreds of thousands or billions of years.
So, like I said, Math Fail.
Great facepalm – thank you!
Now all we have to do is read their replies to your post here.
Gotta go for the night, but returning tomorrow.
Nye's article was factless! It takes alot more faith to believe in the chanceness of gases and liquids forming the complex galaxies and life than to believe scientific creationism. Nye needs to go back to Science 101. Evolution theory can't be replicated therefore it is only a theory not a fact.
Evolution explains the world we observe FAR better than any other alternative explanation.
It sounds like you need to go back to science 101, hernando. Actually, that would probably be too far over your head. Try the fifth grade again, maybe.
Actually the Bible account of Creation in Genesis is consistent with science.
We are actually still in the seventh creative day which makes a creative day from the creation of Adam at least six thousand years ago.
A "day" does not necessarily mean a 24 hr period. For example we can say in my dad's "day", which could be along peruod of time. So the creative "days" mentioned in the book of Genesis could be many thousands of years long.
It is not consistent with science that the earth was created in 7 literal days. Although I do not believe in evolution I still see the Bibles record of creation accurate.
It says' "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen 1:1 It gives no time period in which the heavens or earth as a planet was made. It then goes on to tell of the periods of time it took to form various aspects of the planet earth. These period of times are called "days" which of course were seven. This includes the day we live in today being the seventh.
As the heavens and the earth are give no time period, just a "beginning" with no reference to time, could well have taken millions of years to make.
But, if a "day" in the OT doesn't mean a 24 hour period then why are we commanded to take every seventh "day" off work? Surely God did not mean take a vacation every 6000 years?
Well, that's one way to rationalize your belief in something for which there is no proof.
My apologies to those who want to listen to Sheila, and think her views are a fair reflection of True Christianity.
Science and the Bible to not uphold "Creationism". Although God did create the heavens and the earth, it took much longer than 7 days to create life on this planet.
WOOOOWWWW. Seriously, Paul? A DAY IS A DAY...sun up, sun down = ONE DAY. There's VERY little room for your interpretation that the bible wasn't being literal in it's days. And if the bible isn't literal, then WHAT ELSE is it not being literal about...the great flood? Just a metaphor for a thunderstorm, right? Water to wine? Weelllllll, not exactly, I suppose. And let's not forget that PEOPLE wrote Genesis..NOT God. How did they possibly understand how the world was actually created? Answer that one and I'll give you a cookie.
Oh, bullshit! This "biblical day" crap is a copout to make totally unbelievable bible babble a little more acceptable to people that are just beginning to see the light. We can expect to see more of this twisting and reshaping of bible mythology to fit new scientific discoveries in the future.
Evangelical Rule of Thumb:
If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical/metaphorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is an ancient cultural anomaly; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernible by humans; or is just plain magic.
No matter how christians trying to wiggle out of the silly 7-day creation story and say that it's in keeping with science, they'll never be able to overcome the simple fact that "god created" IS NOT nor has it EVER BEEN scientific. It's intellectually lazy for people living in the 21st century. We expect that bronze an iron age people should hold such ignorant notions. They lacked the research or understanding of the physical world to know any better. But to be in this age and still hold such notions as fact, and then try to explain how they are actually "scientifically sound" is apologist behavior at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst.
Religion makes the facts fit the story.
Science makes the story fit the facts.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:8-11 (ESV)
For a very good read on the fine details about mechanisms of living systems, read
"Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems" by Andreas Wagner
Princeton University Press
Google it for more info.
Available in your local college library or online for purchase.
I agree that the method by which we came to be will be disputed until the day we are no more; however, the bigger takeaway tidbit here is why is Bill Nye posting video on yet another topic he is ill equipped to discuss in terms of academic qualifications. There are several topics he has stuck his nose into that he was equally incompetent to discuss (i.e. his commentary on CNN of the Fukushima incident – he proposed there was an error in the translation of hydrogen, and therefore hypothesized it was indeed a helium explosion. Really!?!)
Mr. Nye's degree is in mechanical engineering. If he were to attempt to post a video on some kind of topic associated with his degree, I may indulge my curiosity. While I agree we all have the right to post what we like, one must be considerate of others by stating the contents are your opinion unless one has the training and/or education to speak on a topic as an expert. Simply agreeing or disagreeing with individuals that have spent their academic careers studying the issue you wish to post about is still your opinion, and not worthy of posting as a “serious” piece. That being said, this is just one more piece of “trash” on the internet to be avoided by all except those interested in Mr. Nye’s personal opinion.
The idea that someone can be an expert in every science went out with the professor on Gilligan's Island. :-)
For $99, you can find out if you ar part Neaderthal- not kidding:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
For your $99 and a DNA swab:
"Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."
@ Reality, you're COMPLETELY misreading...intentionally or not...the purpose and point of The Genographic Project: It does NOT tie back to any "Adam" as you suggest. All the project is doing is tracing human transit around the globe. And we should all find it interesting that it just so happens that APES are also quite common in Africa. They pick up at 60,000 years ago simply as a reference point. They never suggest that this is when humans were "created" or started to exist. And I should also point out that 60,000 years completely obliterates any timelines suggested by the content of the Bible.
So unfortunate Bill. New discoveries come from always asking questions and trying to find explanations for them. Blindly accepting evolution as a theory of origins hampers innovation and exploration.
Science doesn't blindly accept anything....
That is religions area
Seems like evolution as a theory of origins has entered the fray as a new religion then.
Name one science (paleontology, genetics, geology, ect) where evolution is a controversial idea. The reason evolution is widely accepted is because all the other related fields confirm it.
evolution, and evolution as a theory of origins, are two very different things. evolution on its own isn't controversial.
Evolution does not say anything about orgin of life. Some Creationists have attached orgin to evolution because they don't understand it and/or as an attempt to discredit it among believers.
so your trying to say that evolution doesn't try to explain from what species humans come originate from?
so your trying to say that evolution doesn't try to explain from what species humans originate from?
I said orgin of life. The orgin of humans evolution is accepted by all fields of science. Genetics alone proves the orgins of human evolution.
please link or state this "proof" supplied by the field of genetics.
Shared DNA proves a common ancestor. This is not even argued anomg scientists, it is accepted fact. It is only controversial among some religious people.
Oh and if you want to find the science behind it go to talkorgins.org, you can tell them yourself they are wrong. You better have your facts together, good luck.
You know what? The Lego castle I built with my son shares 90% of the building materials I used to build a Star Wars star destroyer, and yet one is a castle and the other is a spaceship. It is almost like I intelligently designed two completely different things using mostly the same building materials! Isn't that whacky?!
*sigh* I don't have enough faith to be an atheist OR an evolutionist.
If everything in nature is designed how do you compare design to non-design?
You do know that evolution theory came from new discoveries, always asking questions and trying to find explanations for them instead of just blindly accepting the explanation that the Church gave, right? Creationism wants people to drop the scientific exploration of any topic that might conflict with religious dogma set out thousands of years ago. How is this "progress"?
The utter ignorance and frankly stupidity of proponents of Creationism is stunning. How anyone who any degree of scientific education from High School onwards can rationally say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old is bewildeing. Then again of course they are soaked in hypocracy. How do you think a car works or a computer works or medicine works, because it follows the same scientific method that concludes that the earth is 14, billion years old. To the rest of the industrial educated world we are a laughing stock and this irrational 'belief' , as it is nothing else, will be one off the elements of our demise.
kts you will be amazed when you see God, in all his Glory and Majesty with thousands and thousands of his angels. He spoke and the earth came into being. He created the Sun, the Stars and the Moon. He determined the boundaries for all the oceans and knitted you together in your mother's womb. He even determined where and when you would be born. Get personal with him, for if you choose to abide in him, he will come and make his home with you. And he is wonderful !
You left out the part where 'he' has a stork drop you off at your parents' house.
Have you seen God, with all his glory and majesty and thousands of angels? Well, if you are just waiting for that to happen, you may just want to do soemthing better with your time. And if you have, lady you suffer from delusion and psychosis – go see a shrink
Please state again how the scientific method went about proving the earth is 14 billion years old.
Sheila, you seem to be totally biblewashed beyond any hope of recovery. People like you are just too fucking far gone to ever see the truth, even if it bit you in the ass. Your kind will eventually fade into obscurity and truth will prevail. Unfortunately, the damage will linger for a few generations but, hopefully, our country will recover.
Sheila: You rock, Sister! Thank you for being a light in a dark place. The truth is always refreshing :) Well done, and don't let the haters get to you.
sheila: have you seen god? what does god look like?
Sorry girl. You may believe all these things about God, but you surely can't know them for certain. Evolution is supported by evidence. Wishing that wasn't so doesn't make it just go away, so get your head out of the clouds.
Nye himself undermines any credibility to science by his own lack of logic an rationale. He claims those who believe in Christian Creation hold back science. How in the world does that work ? Science has been advancing at it's own pace regardless of anyone's faith in God. What holds back the human race is the lack of belief and obedience in God. For as long as humans lack faith and obedience then we cannot receive all the blessings and good health we could have. If only every human being would humbly acknowledge God and realize he is humble, merciful and loving, and then walk in this teachings, he would bless us with miracles and healing across this whole Global Sphere. His son died and conquered death so that he may conquer death for each and every one of us who believe on him. Science cannot conquer death. Science cannot grant eternal life. Science will never heal every sickness and disease, and Science can never heal a sad heart. But God can heal us and wipe our tears away, and bring us the peace that transcends all understanding and a life of pure joy. Which would you rather have, a scientific theory, or a happy healthy life ?
Go ahead and search "Creationists End Civilization" on yutube. Watch it. This should very well enlighten you as to why religion hampers human advancement of science.
People who don't accept certain aspects of science do hold back humanities future because a lot of people out there pass that ideology on to their children. I've posted on here recently but I'm staying anonymous on this one because here is where I use my girlfriend as an example.
I LOVE her no matter what and vice versa. She has her relationship with God and I on the other hand don't find credibility in religion whatsoever.
I have a profound interest in all things science and historic. She literally doesn't believe in space, hates math and science and views the plight of poor people and the effort to conserve our earth as unnecessary due to the fact that Earth is disposable and no matter what there's eternal happiness as long as you say you love God and accept Jesus into your heart.
When I say I find no credibility in religion that does not mean I don't respect her views. I just hope she doesn't promote this disdain of furthering knowledge in fields of science and history to her children (ours if we last that long).
I love her regardless and I love all regardless of their views, being non-mainstream when it comes to spirituality I hope that mainstream spiritualists would find it in their heart (and their religion) to love as unconditionally regardless of all differences.
Bullshit. My mother was a complete atheist. She thought, as I do, that all religions were just suprstitious nonsense, like voodoo. She died last year at the age of 105 without a single sick day in her life and never setting foot in a church except for my sister's wedding.
Believe it or not, every kid has the potential to grow up and be a great scientist, even the Christian children. Unfortunately, the propaganda against evolution undoubtedly steers many away from this field either because they have no confidence in science as a result, or because they fear coming into conflict with their faith communities and family over their choice in joining the mainstream scientific community.
Similarly, how many Christian children would become doctors if this profession were attacked as strongly as the scientific community is? Ironically, much of modern medicine depends on the biology that takes evolution as a given. Fact is, evolution is being "used" daily to give us new medicines and other benefits. So, chances are that all of you creationists couldn't live the lives you enjoy without it.
To underscore Cq's point,
U.S. students recently finished 25th in math and 17th in science in the ranking of 31 countries by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Women currently const.itute 48 percent of the U.S. workforce but hold just 24 percent of the U.S. jobs in STEM.
Fewer than 15 percent of American engineers are women.
Sixty percent of the new jobs that will open in the 21st century will require skills possessed by only 20 percent of the current workforce.5 The U.S. may be short as many as three million high-skills workers by 2018. Two-thirds of those jobs will require at least some post-secondary education. American universities, however, only award about a third of the bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering as Asian universities. Worldwide, the United States ranks 17th in the number of science degrees it awards.
The competi.tive edge of the US economy has eroded sharply over the last decade, according to a new study by a non-partisan research group. The report found that the U.S. ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions, based on 16 indicators of innovation and competi.tiveness. They included venture capital investment, scientific research, spending on research, and educational achievement.7 The prestigious World Economic Forum ranks the U.S. as No. 48 in quality of math and science education.
25 years ago, the U.S. led the world in high school and college graduation rates. Today, the U.S. has dropped to 20th and 16th.
I can't wait till God comes down an laughs at all the scientists. He will again create a new heaven and a new earth in 6 days !
What vitriol you seem to have against souls not in the fold !
Why would he laugh? You are being very presumptuous about God and his thought and subsequent actions.
However, there is nothing presumptuous about knowing that He is a loving God and He alone reserves judgement.
Maybe you should reflect upon that.
S--U--R--E he will!
Start holding your breath... now!
Don't you find it the least bit odd that as the Hubble Space Telescope records the cosmos, it has never once recorded ANY world being created in 6 days? That's not even a LITTLE strange to you? That EVERY galaxy appears to form as science would predict it, and not through an act of magical will? Really, think about that.
Sheila is too far gone to even understand what we're saying. Pity.
For everyone's sake, I really, really hope you didn't reproduce.
If the idea of God laughing seems strange to you, read Psalm 2, verse 4. True, this is something of an anthropomorphism, and I doubt if it has scientists in mind, but the word is there.
exlonghorn wrote: "Don't you find it the least bit odd that as the Hubble Space Telescope records the cosmos, it has never once recorded ANY world being created in 6 days? That's not even a LITTLE strange to you?"
How would the Hubble Space Telescope record a unique, one-time, non-repeatable event? That would be kind of hard to do.
"That EVERY galaxy appears to form as science would predict it, and not through an act of magical will? Really, think about that"
Exactly. Except for, you know, the galaxies that are spinning the wrong way, the galaxies that should be shaped differently but aren't, the binary star systems that shouldn't exist, and the slew of other stellar abnormalities that shouldn't exist in a 14billion-year-old universe.
Nothing to see here, though. Move along. Pay no attention to anything that threatens your cosmology or worldview. ;)
I bet you would wet yourself in anticipation of this, Sheila. Why wait? Meet Jeebus halfway...do you have tall buildings where you live? Pretty sure that god will be on your side, are ya?
Jeebus will be here any day now.......annnnnyyyyyy day......
watsa matta, sheila, the savior get stuck in traffic?
mahebb, first, go ahead and post references for all those things like "galaxies spinning the wrong way" that you say are inconsistent with modern science. I am quite willing to bet you that if modern astrophysics cannot explain these things, they will do so within our lifetime. Higgs boson? Proven. Perturbation theory? Proven. Quarks and muons? Proven. it's just a matter of time, pal.
Regarding Hubble (and all out other telescopes) not recording a one-time event, that's EXACTLY my point, nitwit! We observe stars and galaxies forming as current knowledge would predict. Why would a deity form the whole universe and it's trillions of stars in a few days, and then let every other star and planet form forever after according to the laws of physics?
I had a comic book where Superman made a new Earth in just one day. :-)
That is not a slam! That is a milk toast reply.
I do agree though that Bill Nye should make a distinction between Creationists who believe the Bible is 6 days old, and Creationists who believe a God was behind the curtain kicking of science and evolution.
Who cares if people find a God in the cracks - what matters is they think logically and follow the science - not the politicians on science issues such as global warming.
Let's get some things straight.
1. Evolution is based in science. Creationism is based in theology. And never the twain shall meet. They CANNOT be discussed in the same conversation. A scientific idea can either be proved or disproved. A theological idea, such as the existence of god, cannot be proved or disproved, therefore it is not scientific. One is based on fact, the other on faith. Because of this, they CANNOT be mutually exclusive. Denying evolution is like denying gravity; try to fall up. Denying creationism is like denying a fairytale – if you like the story, more power to you. Believe whatever fairytale you want, but your feet are still planted on the ground because of gravity.
2. A lot of you confuse "theory" with "hypothesis.". When you say evolution is just a "theory" what you really mean to say is that it is an idea. In science, a theory explains an observed fact. In science, a theory is one step from being a law. Before the law of gravity was a law, it was a theory. This theory was an attempt to explain the observed fact of gravity; to quantify it and predict it's behavior. No one could deny the force of gravity. When a theory stands the test of time, it becomes a law. Theories start out as hypotheses. A scientist will have "multiple working hypotheses" and try not to become too attached to any one in particular. Then, using Occam's Razor, and other techniques, pares these down to a theory.
3. Darwin's theory of evolution was an attempt to explain the observed fact of evolution; it wasn't the concept of evolution itself. It's not yet a law, because some of the details are still being worked out – the theory is itself evolving. This is the beauty of science over religion: in it's purest form it is free of dogma and scientists can readily disagree with each other without persecution. In fact, it is encouraged and this is how you arrive at the TRUTH.
4. Scientists observed the fact of evolution amid persecution from the church, but the truth was so compelling that they persevered. Galileo spent the latter part of his life under house arrest because of his "blasphemous" views, but that still did not stop his studies.
5. To sum up: evolution is an observed FACT, a theory is darn close to a law, and science and theology are completely different things. Think of this: evolution does not preclude the existence of a god, it just makes him (or her) much more complicated and beautiful than you thought. But creationism precludes the existence of many things that we know are true. It's just a pretty fairytale and has NO PLACE IN SCIENCE.
scienceisgod did a pretty good job, but missed the boat comparing scientific law vs theory. A theory does not eventually become a scientific law. A theory is the best explanation of the mechanism behind a particular natural phenomenon. It can evolve over time as new evidence is discovered. Scientific law describes a stable common occurrence in the natural world. It is not an explanation of why the phenomenon occurs in the first place.
to reiterate, evolution is an observable provable fact. evolution as an explanation for origins is not an observable or probable fact.
The Law of gravity was the "Theory of Gravity" before it became a law. All the Laws of physics started out as theories. Not all theories become laws, however, but in science a theory is very close to a law. The distinction between hypothesis and theory is very important. It's not the "Hypothesis of Evolution" but the "Theory of Evolution." The Theory of Relativity is very close to becoming a law as it stands the test of time.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.