 |
|
|
|
August 27th, 2012
11:31 AM ET
Bill Nye slams creationismBy 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. soundoff (14,640 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 Next » |
  About this blog
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.  |
|
|
|
My goodness. There's enough theory and guessing on here to make at least one good tv show this fall. mama kindless is going to tell you straight up what's true and what's not true:
Does god exist? No one knows. Not worth exploring that anymore cause you'll just get shingles or worse. If you're really a wimp, it's ok to pray to "it" and hope it hears you. But keep that junk to yourself.
Who or what created the big bang? No one knows. Leave it to the scientists and give about another few hundred years to learn a few more things about it. Get a good book and forget about it, or turn on that big bang tv show – lot more interesting.
Does religion know anymore about God than you do – even if you are an atheist? Hell no. It's pretty obvious that men sold and keep on selling religion to other weak-minded fools to "try to make them feel better" (but really, it's always been about making a buck; they are sneaky this way, just like the current Republican party). Mama kindless don't make these kinds of statements lightly and without having studied the bible for many years. Like Daddy used to say, the early religious politicians were caught with their pants down when the bible was suddenly printed and normal folk could read it. Unfortunately, the early churches had too much power to allow people to question the validity of all that junk that was so disorganized and conflicting in that book. It took me many years to understand what he meant. Now it is so clear. Before that book was printed, all the way from the roman empire to martin luther, the catholic church had everyone under a salesman's spell since the people were afraid, and in some cases depended on the church to protect them, so they just bought all the religion without even knowing what really went into and if that information was trustworthy. my goodness.
I guess it is interesting to wonder how human beings developed, and to listen to all these theories. But just remember one thing – this creationism crap is just bait (and not even good bait). Because of what I said above, it's not worth considering as a possibility – even if someone says it doesn't conflict with evolution. Why? Because every time, the people that need for you to feel that way are not going to leave it at some unknown god and then leave it alone. No, they will try to sell you the next thing, and the next thing and next thing you know, they'll have convinced you to throw away sensible information that may even be scientifically proven while they take your mind all the way from just a god to some crazy angel from some shish-kolob marcaroni grill in the sky. my goodness. creationism my a$$. cretenism is what it is.
Are you drunk? That was absolutely retarded.
I would recommend making more paragraphs if you're going to run through the mud like that. Maybe checking your words would help before you post, too. Goodness gracious you.
Great job, mama. Like
Here's what I LOVE must about the intellectual sophisticated enlightened progressives on this subject in these forums:
They are so bold and so brave in attacking and mocking and ridiculing Christian believers and Christian scripture and Christian doctrine Christian diety. Yet ... ... ... ... for some odd reason they NEVER EVER EVER mention any of the other world's religions who all believe in God, premortal life, postmortal life, creation, the eternal nature of the human soul, morality, God's justice, atonement, forgiveness, judgment, reward, and on and on and on.
Do they ever mock Islam?
Do they mock Buddhism?
Do they mock Hinduism?
Do they mock Judaism? (Well, ... never mind about that one.)
Huh?
Cowards. Haters. Bigots. But worst of all - discriminating biased cowards, haters, and bigots. (I wonder why...?)
Walk away from the cretins. Shun them as they deserve. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. Let them enjoy their ephemeral gleeful conceit.
Please save your martyr-complex. Christians are the majority here. Christians (not all) advance creationism and these Christians get called out for being un- and more importantly, anti-scientific. For the record, any magic belief which directly contradicts the convergent empirical facts of science is worthy of ridicule.
There's plenty of displeasure and counter-arguments to the silliness of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism (along with numerous other religions as well).
The difference you see on these forums is that the majority of commentators on this forum are American, and the prevailing religion in the US is Christianity/Catholicism, so that is the easiest and most common target. You also don't see nearly the recruiting drives by Islam or Judaism in America that you see Christianity conduct.
The fact is atheists, myself included, believe all creationism is wrong from the ground up. It's based on blind faith in deities that are contradictory in message and actions. Then you consider the so called holy books of Judaism and Christianity were written hundreds of years AFTER the events they supposedly describe. This alone is a pretty clear condemnation of their authenticity.
That's because its the Christians who are trying to keep mankind in the dark ages in this country, Islam does it too, but not in america
christians are the worst most extreme threat in the us of a right now, so that's why i often focus on them. But I will spit on the quran or any other religion made up and kept alive by charlatans and fools. god might be ok, but no one know enough about his to say one damn thing about it.
Actually, most of the arguments are voiced against the Abrahamic god myth that is the basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, although the basic logic could be applied to any religion.
Funny, but all religions have a creation myth. So it would seem that 'attacking' creationism is 'attacking' religion in general. Hop down off your cross and read a book...no not THAT book but one that will expand your mind and views not restrict them.
mama kindless meant to type "about him", of course.
damo12345 said
"Actually, most of the arguments are voiced against the Abrahamic god myth that is the basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, although the basic logic could be applied to any religion."
true. but, I don't care where it comes from – you give me someone saying something other than "we just don't know" about god, and I'll show you a salesman, or a politician, or a lobbyist.
Now that I read even more by this ABMiller – I realize what a cretin that person is. And the nerve to talk about bigotry. A good many religious people are, by far, the most bigoted and two-faced people you will ever meet. Not all, and not all the time, but right now religious extremists are very bigoted and two-faced in the us of a. my goodness.
I have to agree... Most of these enlightened folks lack the guts to point out Islam's incongruities for the very reason that the very next day they may get a chance to test out the theory of whether there is a God once you cross to the other side. I believe in God and don't believe in the six-day thing (rather think that the six days may have been God days, more like a billion years each or something), but I don't mess with the folks who believe... Let them be.
Mama, look in the mirror, I give as good as I get. If you don't like, drop off. I belief in Christ, I never said I was a good disciple. Take your hate-filled prejudice and shove it. God will take care of me and my sins, just like you. I just want you bigots to ridicule all believers alike ... otherwise, you're nothing but a bunch of cowardly nitwits. (Yes, I said it. Too bad for you and your hyper-sensitive hypocritical faculties.)
I guess you don't get out much or are new to the internet. All religions are equally mocked here.
Why don't we ever see you complaining on the Muslim articles? Oh, wait, you can't because then you would look even more stupid than you look right now.
I guess you're right - I don't "get out much." Because I don't spend my time on the Internet. Makes a lot of sense. Go to bed, teacher.
Ah yes. The charitible Christard, teaches "shunning". That wonderful 16th Century practice, which Jesus would NEVER even think of. How amazing the idiots actually call themselves Christians, and Jesus did everything he could to embrace the "other". Fvcking idiot.
Is there ONE PLACE in the Bible where God tells people to learn as much about the world as possible? Is there ONE PLACE where God says to get an education other than, vainly, about himself?
Still waiting for an answer.
Can't anyone find ONE EXAMPLE?
Might I commend the book of Proverbs (right in the middle there, after Psalms), and what it has to say about wisom?
Troy,
Please supply a couple of actual quotes.
Yes.
Proverbs 1:5-7. Mathew 7:8. To name a couple only a fool would think that god does not want his people educated about secular as well as spiritual things. There are many more references but i know that know matter how many foolish pride will always leave the window of justification open. There is no proof of the big bang theory yet you accept it as fact. There are literally hundreds of theories on the forming of this earth yet only one of those theories could possibly be right making the rest false. You profess to know your sciptures yet you lack the understanding of the words contained within. This is foolish and unwise behavior. Even Bill Nye didn,t bother to research the concept he makes fun of. The bible states 6 creative periods and calls them days, we know not the length of time these periods were. It also states that he took matter unorganized, you cannot create something from nothing.
Here Here to Bill Nye.
There's a reason you see atheists have an on-average higher IQ, better education, more stable families (less teen pregnancies etc). Atheists also hold a majority stake of scientists, scholars and Nobel Prize winners.
Creationism should be indicted for the millions if not billions of lives it has destroyed over the millennial, the oppression of women, torture of millions during the Inquisition and the keeping of slaves.
Never ceases to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people are so willing to make a monkey of themselves lol
Apparently you never heard of the godless regimes who committed the worst genocides in the history of the world - Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, ... et.al. Fool.
Smart people aren't fooled by fear mongering religion.
JWoody907, It all comes down to education. While I am not religious, I was raised with religion in very good Jesuit schools. We were never taught that creationism was valid. I didn't, in fact, even know what it was until I was in my teens when I saw a play about the Scopes trials. I did, however, know about evolution, from my Biology classes, which I had accepted as pretty much fact.
I honestly cannot believe that this is an issue in this day. My father was Episcopalian, my mother a convert to Judaism, and they raised my sister and me Catholic. I cannot believe that anyone would consider banning religious texts, but I also am incredulous that they have found their interpretations in our science classrooms. In all of the years that our families have been a part of the world's major religions, it is so sad to see this ridiculous dichotomy, a very political agenda that has NO place in children's science education.
Bill, please present evidence that children raised by Bible believing Christians are less 'scientific' than other children?
I would think that evolutionists in this day and age would now be able to 'create' the most simple life form, since it's so easy that just a matter of time, in a totally sterile environment, could see life come forth. And if we, humans, are products of evolution, why aren't there millions of different 'humans' since each one of us should be the product of random chance?
Fundamentally, the question is, is there a 'creator' or is all of this the result of random occurrence with no intelligent interference? Either one requires faith- in Bill Nye's 'modern science' or God.
"Bill, please present evidence that children raised by Bible believing Christians are less 'scientific' than other children?"
Well, if they believe in the Bible, then they're less scientific than children that don't.
Of course it's possible for Bible-believing people to raise children that don't believe in religious myths, but that's nitpicking his wording if you ask me.
They believe in creationism, hence less scientific.
Your questions alone betray the dangers of teaching the Bible as science. You confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution and your question regarding millions of different "humans" is equally silly. Understanding a process and the ability to replicate are not the same thing. As said elsewhere here, we understand how stars form and our inability to reproduce the formation of a star does not invalidate the understanding. There are, in fact, millions of different humans who are the products of randomness and chance, particularly at the reproductive and genetic level. For example, you bear ~ 100 unique genetic mutations not found in either of your parents. If you were referring to the various H. sapien and ancestral species, the question is still silly. Evolution does not predict what you claim and betrays you simply don't understand what you are arguing against.
No, science does not require faith. Science is based on a system of observation and experimentation, called the Scientific Method, which relies on drawing fact based conclusions from data.
There are several different ethnicities of humans, and there is mountains of evidence of other species of humans that have died out. Would you proclaim to believe that all races of humans came from the 8 people on Noah's Ark and without the process of evolution?
The constant notion that those that believe in the God of the Bible are somehow ignorant of science is still unproven here, just words. Has science proven evolution? No, we can't make the most simple life form. Why, because they are not simple! Even single cell life forms are beyond our ability to assemble yet we believe that somehow they just happened? Many of the 'fairy tales' of the Bible have been found to be true. Did one million Israelites leave Egypt through the Red Sea? Science is trying to figure out how as the evidence is there that it happened. Do we know how the ancients built much of what they did, like the pyramids? No, but they exist.
Hey JWoody907, have you applied the Scientific Method to macro-evolution, and how has that worked out for you? I'd love to evaluate your data and further understand your methodology for testing. I'd also love to hear who your sources are (Bill Maher doesn't count). Oh, and would you by chance know when the ”Science Guy” will be lecturing on something he's actually discovered at MIT or Harvard or Oxford? I bet they can't wait to be enlightened by his scientific genius!
Still don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Still make arguments of incredulity based in arguments of ignorance. Complexity, ergo, God = Non sequitor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html
Tom, much easier to believe that all races on planet earth came from 8 people rather than eight amoebae, I would think.
Still don't understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Still make arguments of incredulity based in arguments of ignorance. Complexity, ergo, God = Non sequitor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/science/21cell.html
Also, science doesn't "prove". Proof is only available in formal logic and math. Physical science conclusions are based on validated predictive mechanisms. Not only is your scientific background so lacking that you make these errors, it's so lacking that you are incapable of understanding why these are errors in the first place.
Sure unicorns are mentioned in the bible, but they ain't your pretty pony flying winged variety with pixy dust. There are a lot of animals that have become extinct since the bible's been written. What's your point.
Thank You BILL NYE...The Bible is Pure Fiction and should be BANNED
Banning books is nonsense, you can still get a copy of Mein Kampf, however, the section which you get religious books should be changed to "fiction".
Quoc, I am sure that yu do not mean that. I assure that I sympathize with your outrage at what is happening in our country. But why should the Bible be banned? It has served writers with inspiration for centuries, and has served as inspiration to many many Christians. It is the crazy people who are interpreting it in their own special ways that should be banned from science classrooms. Don't you think? I'm not a follower, but I don't agree with book-banning of any form. Should we then ban the Q'ran, also (and you can just imagine the legal ramifications here)?
If it's fiction why fear it? It has been around longer than those that have proclaimed its 'death' or demise.
Not that long ago that a huge number of people still believed the world was flat, or the Sun rotated around the Earth. Now those notions are considered silly.
Creationism is headed in that direction, and for virtually everyone involved in science, it's already there.
Prove it.
Well, no. There has never been any widespread belief that the earth is flat. The Greeks knew it was a sphere several thousand years ago, and that knowledge was both widespread and commonplace throughout history. The only group that may have held such beliefs was a small, obscure group in the Middle East a few hundred years BC.
The modern day epithet of being a flat earther seems to have originated in the 19th century in a short story by Washington Irving, who made it up out of whole cloth.
@sixdegrees – not a big history buff are ya?
Dave – feel free to provide some references to any cultures which held this view.
Elementary school teachers. They still teach that Columbus sailed to prove the world was not flat.
It's JUST A BOOK!!!!!
“God, as Nietzsche puts it, is dead; and you and I, with the relentless little knives of our own intellect—psychology, history, and science—we have killed him. God is dead”.
Yes we killed him by curing the sick, by planting kidney, heart, liver, etc. in patient’s body to keep him/her alive; the patient that god had decided to kill.
We killed god with theory of “Natural Selection”, by excavating fossils, by inventing all kinds of gadgets that god did not want us to have. It began with the invention and manufacture of stone tools. Since then we constantly and steadily have been choking god to death. To me and 25% of people on Earth god is dead but unfortunately it is still breathing inside the mind of other 75%, what a pity.
I dropped out of a PhD program in New Testament studies because I realized the bible was as about as holy as the Apostle Paul's rectum. I wonder how many students drop out of evolutionary biology because the evidence is against it.
“God, as Nietzsche puts it, is dead; and you and I, with the relentless little knives of our own intellect—psychology, history, and science—we have killed him. God is dead”.
Yes we killed him by curing the sick, by planting kidney, heart, liver, etc. in patient’s body to keep him/her alive; the patient that god had decided to kill.
We killed god with theory of “Natural Selection”, by excavating fossils, by inventing all kinds of gadgets that god did not want us to have. It began with the invention and manufacture of stone tools. Since then we constantly and steadily have been choking god to death. To me and 25% of people on Earth god is dead but unfortunately it is still breathing inside the mind of other 75%, what a pity.
...just as it was predicted in the Bible. As more and more people deny God, we come closer and closer to the end of days. Pity.
Bill Nye,
I, myself, am an evolutionist. Yet as such, I do not think that by extension I would make a much better mechanical engineer than someone who is a YEC. A YEC could simply dismiss atheistic evolution, but still believe that F=ma and other laws of Newtonian physics which are the foundation of mechanical engineering. Many physicians are also YEC and still good at what they do as are many, many other professionals that subscribe to a variety of different religious explanations for the origins of the cosmos and life itself. Being a YEC is not an automatic disqualification for doing scientific work because science is driven by an objective methodology, so as long as that methodology is not compromised then one is free to think whatever they please. This is America, not Orwell's "1984".
Being a YEC does however mean that you supplant your own personal religious views in place of evidence. It goes a step beyond simply believing in a god, because it means simultaneous rejection of evidence. That's not a science based mindset, and not the mindset that a good engineer would have. Personally, I don't want my engineers believing that facts must conform to their beliefs, rather than beliefs conforming to facts.
If a YEC cannot understand how their beliefs are contradicted by evidence from really any field of science, from physics to geology to biology, then I have doubts about their abilities to be talented engineers. It requires a lot more curious and open a mind to be an engineer, and such rejection of evidence does not typically yield an analytic mind.
Some might overcome it, but do we really want to start with that kind of disadvantage?
The belief in god is not the issue, it's the denial of science. For example a large and politically powerful portion of the worlds largest energy consumer denying not only the fact that climate change is happening, but that it even can happen as a result of the actions of humans.
Go take even a beginning level astronomy course and then tell me that the greenhouse effect is a myth. You may as well say the sky isn't blue.
Without religion, man would not have evolved to study Science.
Actually, scientific progress has been stunted by organized religion. I don't think Copernicus or Galileo were patted on the back and congratulated by the arch bishop or the Pope. They had to do some smooth talking just to keep from being burned to death or worse.
Without a God, none of this would even be up for debate, as none of this would exist.
I think it's a valid point, creationist theories and god-oriented religions were originally developed as an attempt to explain things and answer questions. Early forms of science and religion have at times been closely related, but I would say that philosophy and science are much more closely related. Philosophers back in ancient times would often develop explanations for light, the different forms of matter (liquid solid gas) the theory of elements, water fire etc.. As far as the church goes there is at least Pope Julius II, who was an art patron and looked more favorably on secular pursuits than other popes have. The school of athens comes to mind.
The human existed before any religious books and bibles were ever written.
Fear of nature's forces, fear of the meteor or falling star is what started the primitive religious rituals. As man became more civilized, religious beliefs became more prominent.
Religion is what civilized man so he could go on to study Science.
I believe in creationism, but not the strict, 24-hour day version...I realize that science has proven the Earth is much older than 6,000 years, and I won't try to argue with facts given by science. God created the Earth over a long period of time in my belief, allowing evolution to occur to a degree. I don't agree with the old "humans evolved from monkeys" deal though, for 2 reasons. 1, God created man and woman himself, it did not happen on its own. 2, if monkeys (or primates or whatever) became humans, why isn't that still happening? I know that the two versions of the world's origin can and do work hand-in-hand in reality, and who knows for certain how God played it all out? Maybe modern science is wrong and the world really is only 6,000 years old...maybe God created primates to turn into humans, and the first to become man was Adam...maybe the Big Bang theory was God on the first day creating the heavens and the universe...the fact is, I don't know. I know a rough, undetailed account that the Bible provides (or maybe it is an exactly perfect and literal account). I'm not going to worry too much about it though, because that knowledge is not required to gain access to heaven. I'm a 17-year-old Christian, and believe me, having being taught creationism hasn't tainted my views. Everyone makes their own decision at some point, so as much as I love Bill Nye, I disagree with him on this topic, as parents should teach their children however they want and in high school the kids will make their own choices.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Enjoy learning.
Hmm. Trying to make intelligent points.
But there should be a line to not allow High School drop outs reasoning the scientific logical reasoning.
"If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? Why aren't they all becoming Americans by now?"
Monkeys don't become humans, humans evolve from monkeys. There's a distinction there that I feel is more clear if we avoid the whole 'monkey' thing because human arrogance often tends to blind us.
Humans are eukaryotes, that is, our cells have a nucleus. We evolved from other eukaryotes, but eukaryotes do not automatically evolve to be humans. There are still plenty of other eukaryotes out there, from sponges, to yeast, to mammals to reptiles, etc. We share a common ancestor with other eukaryotes, but eukaryotes branched off into tons of different forms of life.
Now, we also evolved from vertebrates, in that we have spines. We are not the only organisms with spines, but we are descendant from an organism with a spine. Organisms with a spine do not automatically become human, human isn't the goal of vertebrate evolution.
We also evolved from monkeys, in that we branched off from old world monkeys slightly after new world monkeys had already branched off, so we share a common ancestor with other monkeys. That doesn't mean monkeys automatically become humans, they could branch off into different organisms, but we still evolved from them.
Everywhere along the way you get more specific branches. Originally when life was first evolving, there were no vertebrates, evolution doesn't have 'one thing turning into another' like pokemon, it has life branching off like a giant complex web. We evolved from that which we are, we ARE primates, we ARE eukaryotes, we ARE metazoa, we ARE mammals, we ARE apes, we ARE vertebrates. Our descendants will always be what we are, they will always be human on top of whatever traits they pick up (or lose).
Chimps will never become human, just like humans will never become chimps, because we have now branched off in the same way that vertebrates have branched off from non-vertabrates. We are now different. You picture evolution as a ladder, but that's not how it works.
This is why creationism is bad for children, because those indoctrinated in it have very poor understandings of what biology even says.
Hi Robert, I remember when I held your opinion. I was studying at Christian university, struggling to reconcile my biology class and my Pentateuch (first five books) my junior year. And this was the opinion I developed and held firmly to, with a lot of my friends. And believe, it was a stretch to get me to that point. But, what I eventually discovered: I had not gone deep enough yet. I do not want to preach from the other side of the pew, but all I can tell you is become truly curious about science and truth. In that curiosity, you want to lose the seriousness with which approach the subject and just get curious to learn without trying to prove or disprove anything. It will alter your experience. You gotta go deeper, man.
Andrew – humans did not evolve from monkeys. We are apes, yes, but the creatures we call "monkeys" which exist in the world right now are not our actual evolutionary ancestor.
A chimpanzee-like creature was our ancestor. So far the best candidates we know of are Ardipithecus kadabba, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, and Orrorin tugenensis.
I know, nitpicking, but "man evolved from a monkey" is a misunderstanding we need to lay to rest.
damo12345
No, it's not a myth that needs to be laid to rest, it's demonstrably true, it's just people don't like admitting it. We are paraphyletic to monkeys, meaning we're not taxonomically considered monkeys, but we are, without a doubt, descendants from them.
Roughly 40 million years ago Simiiformes branched into two groups, Platyrrhini (New world monkeys) and Catarrhini, containing Old World Monkeys and apes. That means the 'monkey' branch existed prior to the Ape/Cercopithecidae split, so clearly the Ape/Cercopithecidae common ancestor would have been a 'monkey'. If the Ape/Cercopithecidae common ancestor was a monkey, then we too are monkeys.
I admit, we are considered paraphyletic, but that doesn't mean our evolutionary lineage doesn't contain monkeys. It clearly does roughly 40 million years ago, we're as much 'monkeys' as birds are dinosaurs. Sure, they're not taxonomically considered therapsids, but that doesn't mean they didn't evolve from therapsids.
Thanks for the feedback (I guess). A few of you gave me things to move forward on, a few criticized me, someone you don't know, for not agreeing with your point of view. Whether or not you believe it, I graduated a year early with a 4.167GPA through high school and 12 college credit hours under my belt already; I am far from uneducated, and am upset that I would be attacked for having Christian views some of you view as "ignorant". I have an open mind, I am up for debate, but I have never attacked someone for disagreeing with me. I do not particularly know a TON on the theory of evolution, and like I said before, there is no pinpointing it to an EXACT science no matter how hard we try or how far we come. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. I have faith, I am a Christian, and this is one of those tests God lays out for his people to go through (standing up for your beliefs, not denying Christ, etc.). Regardless of what you say, my views will remain, because as unpredictable as scientists view religion as, science is just as unpredictable. Like I said, it is a combination of the two in my opinion, whatever combo it is does not bother me enough to want to dig deeper. Cam, I hope that whatever you have learned has not shaken or derailed your faith, as that is the most important thing to hold through uncertain times. Do not put me down for having religion in my life. Do not put me down for being someone who tries to figure out how religion and science can work together. If nothing else, keep your opinions to yourself if you have nothing better to add, because close-minded and arrogant people up on their pedestals (whether they be the arrogant scientists criticizing religion or the arrogant Christians judging people's sins) are people I do NOT want to talk to.
Robert, take this as a guy who has just graduated university with a degree in physics... graduating high school, regardless of your grades, has you uneducated. Biologists spend a lot of time as undergraduates and graduate students and post-grads and post docs before they could really be considered well educated in the field.
Even with a BSC in physics I often feel inadequate discussing physics with anyone who has had more than two or three years of grad-level schooling on the subject. You should learn first just how little you know, which prevents you from falling victim to the Dunning–Kruger effect. You should start by evaluating how little a knowledge base you have to discuss a subject on, because otherwise it becomes difficult to even tell what a good source would be.
"There's no pinpointing it to an EXACT science"
I'm not sure what you mean by an 'exact science'. No, you don't need as many mathematics models to describe evolution as you need, say, models to describe gravitation under general relativity, but they're being used to explain different phenomenon.
Evolution is about explaining the diversity of life, measurements consist of sequencing genomes and comparing conserved gene frequencies, or matching endogenous retro-viral markers, or building matching morphological trees. The beauty of evolutionary biology is that unlike physics, where you have to take a ton of data to hope that the one model you've got really works, evolution allows you to pull together pieces from hundreds of different areas of search to all support the same theory. You can pull from palaeontology, you can look at experiments, you can find actual examples of speciation events that have happened in our lifetimes, and yes, genetics too. It's an advantage how many different fields of evidence can support evolutionary biology, not a detriment to the subject.
Physicists often find themselves running into problems when the only thing they can test is how exact data fits models. We've for example found the Higgs, but because the standard model is now so well confirmed, the questions physicists are left with is sorta open ended, they don't have a clear picture of where to go right now.
Oh, and 'science is just as unpredictable'. Not true, this seems to be a fallacy best addressed by Asimov's "Relativity of Wrong" essay. "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." It's a great essay pertaining to how science changes over time. Science gets better, and what we thought now is not likely to be shown entirely wrong tomorrow... it might be shown wrong, but in a minor way, needing a more intricate correction rather than a total earth shattering removal of what we believe.
Science describes the universe we see, you can choose to reject it, but that's rejecting the universe in favor of faith. I do not enjoy subscribing to such a world view, you might, and that's your prerogative, but it makes you ill-equipped to ever be a scientist or engineer.
Bill is obviously a native to the Pacific NW. People there are too smart to believe in creationism. However, they're not smart enough to figure out the realistic probability of taking all the parts of a Boeing 747 and passing them through a hurricane and having the plane being fully assembled? What's the chances of that occurring? I guess science is going to have to hit them over the head for being idiots for and trying to "Lean on their own understanding."
Yeah, that's like expecting that billions of years of nature selecting among slightly advantageous traits from populations of organisms could lead to life as we know it. Wait, that's reality. Sorry, I forgot you were talking about strawmen.
People like Bill Nye would be smart enough to know that your 'probability of a Boeing 747' being put together is what's called a 'straw man'. A person like Bill would tell you "planes do not reproduce, nor do they have a known natural mechanism for construction".
However if they're a person like me, I vastly prefer discussing the probability of a rock being outside my room. See, there are these things called rocks outside my room. If I were to ask you 'what's the probability that that rock would be in that specific place on earth with that exact configuration of atoms', you would end up citing for me a figure as absurdly small as your 'plane built from randomness' example. Consider, even if I had just a lump of carbon that weighs 12 grams, there's a 1 in 6×10^23! chance that all the atoms lined up in that exact configuration due to random chance alone. That's not 1 in 6×10^23, I might add, that ! in there means 'factorial', where n!=n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)...*3*2*1.
That's an ABSURDLY low probability. That's such a low probability it spits in the face of anything you can think of. And yet, there are, without a doubt, rocks outside my room with probabilities of being arranged that way far less than even that number.
The reason is because 'no specific configuration was predetermined'. That means in the same sense that it's unlikely for any individual to win the lottery, SOME individual is likely to win.
In the case of evolution, it's not even random chance, because 'natural selection' acts as a non-random agent. Consider the case of a rock being tossed up. According to random chance, the probability that a rock tossed up eventually falls down to earth is 1/2, because 1/2 of total paths point away from the earth, and the other half point down. Yet due to a non-random force acting (called "gravity"), you get a consistent result that doesn't model pure random chance.
The issue with you creationists and your typical 'plane being built from scratch' is that none of you seem to have ever taken a course in probability and statistics in the first place. You then feel you can attribute arguments based on statistics anywhere, without any knowledge of how those kinds of arguments must be constructed.
You're telling me the equivalent of 'there's a rock outside my room that's unlikely to have been exactly like it, therefore, god must have placed it there'. God, in your world, would even need to be responsible for making individual snowflakes.
Your view of statistics is inherently flawed, you might do well to go back to university.
Oh wow, evolution is real...we've discovered a troll.
Natural selection has nothing to do with randomness or probability. However, evolutionists still can't scientifically explain the probability of how amino acids became proteins which then became cells which then became life.
Umm, that's a job for chemists and biochemists, evolutionary biologists don't need to explain that any more than a geologist needs to explain how the planet formed in the first place, which is a job for astrophysicists dealing with accretion.
How life first began is irrelevant, the first cell could have been placed by your god, and evolutionary biology, that is, the explanation for the diversity of life on earth, would be unchanged. If you want to believe god created the first cell, fine, but everything after life first came about is well within the evidence based explanations offered by evolutionary biologists. Take your complaints up with biochemists.
The human existed before any religious books and bibles were ever written.
Fear of nature's forces, fear of the meteor or falling star is what started the primitive religious rituals. As man became more civilized, religious beliefs became more prominent.
Actually I am a Christian and I can make both my faith and science agree without doing any mental flips. The bible is literal. When God created Adam, he created a MAN... not a zygote, sperm, fetus, baby, child... but a fully MATURED adult human. It stands to reason that when he created the Earth he created a MATURE planet with ecosystems and everything as it would be if it had evolved. It's not that hard, folks. And it doesn't contradict anything the bible says. Actually, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me for it to be that way than any days = eons theories and other stupid ideas people come up with trying to make the bible fit evolution. The bible already DID fit evolution without any logical gymnastics. Mature man, mature planet, both fully evolved and grown as they were expected to be.
Those aren't mental flips? Could have fooled me.
That's not science Freya. That's personal opinion. No wonder you're not doing any logic gymnastics. Your perspective is devoid of logic.
And every light ray pointed at us from the rest of the universe that appears to be billions of years old and represent 200 billion other galaxies? He put all those in place, too? If that's the case, practically, what's the difference between a universe suddenly appearing out of the blue that appears to be 13.7 billion years old and one that actually is? Logically, there is no difference. So, why exactly do you need the bible again?
And then I gave Adam syphillis, cholera, typhus, leprosy, rabies, malaria, and tuberculosis all simultaneously, because I'm a real ass....and I needed a human vector for some of these historic diseases. Its kind of a miracle he was able to populate the whole planet in 4000 years, considering....
And the Earth is flat,it's also the center of the universe, and the stars are simply holes in the "Spheres of heaven" the ignorance of you people is without limit...
GodFreeNow – it's not devoid of logic. It's the only explanation that actually does fit with the bible, without trying to change what the bible actually says. If god created man as a mature being, it is not inaccurate to assume that he also created the earth as a mature planet. For him NOT to create the earth as a mature planet would be illogical. Why would one be mature and fully formed and not the other? The bible and evolution do not contradict each other. The difference is the bible acknowledges a creator, whereas evolution does not. Yes, that is the "opinion" of christians.... just as it is YOUR opinion that there is no creator. That can't be disprove or proven by mortal systems of measurement, so we are all allowed to believe what we want. I was just trying to point out that to believe in both is not actually incongruent or contradictory, one can still study science quite easily without giving up your beliefs.
Well, that is absurd. Doesn't really matter though. You'll be dead and buried with your beliefs soon enough.
Love It ! Slowly and one by one, they will all see the light and more light and become a real normal human (atheist) !
The one thing I need explained by creationists is why did God create man to have to use the restroom? I am serious. It is so so uncomfortable when you need to go #1 and especially #2 and you are far from a restroom. Actually I would consider it torture. Wouldn't God have a better idea to sustain energy than to leave stinky byproducts of processed food?
Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to say essentially "I believe the world was created last Thursday. All our memories are entirely fake, the world is less than a week old, it just seems like it's 4 billion years old in a 13.7 billion year old universe".
God sure went through a lot of work to have such consistency, why make it seem like the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the earth only 4? Why on earth make the universe seem so reasonable to form without your god?
@Freya, To be clear...
logic |ˈläjik|
noun
1 reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic | he explains his move with simple logic | the logic of the argument is faulty.
• a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: Aristotelian logic.
• the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
• the quality of being justifiable by reason: there's no logic in telling her not to hit people when that's what you're doing.
• (logic of) the course of action or line of reasoning suggested or made necessary by: if the logic of capital is allowed to determine events.
2 a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device so as to perform a specified task.
• logical operations collectively.
Which of these definitions of logic are you claiming to be using?
@godfreenow
In logic, an argument is made when a claim is supported by a set of premises, which both support the other one. The logical connection between the premise and the conclusion is called the inference. These component of an argument (premise, conclusion, and inference), and their relationship with each other represent the structure of an argument.
The claim is I believe the bible and its account of creation, but I also admit there is scientific evidence to support that the earth is very old. Premise one is that based on the account of the bible, when God created Adam he created a mature human male adult. Had Adam been examined by scientists of today's standards, they would have claimed he was some 30 years old, even though he had been created that day. Premise two is the God created the Earth. If God's other creations (Adam, animals, plants, fish) were created in a mature state, one could conclude that the Earth/universe was created in a mature state as well. Just as scientists would say 1 day old Adam was 30 years old, scientists would examine the Earth and say it was billions of years old when it was also just a few days old. Such a conclusion allows one who believes the bible to also believe in scientific observations and not think them contradictory.
Obviously, where an athiest would attack this is in the first claim of belief in the Bible, which they believe is false. That's not my argument. Each of us has religious freedom to accept or reject such beliefs. That's a matter Christian opinion vs Athiest opinion, and cannot be proven or disproved by either side, since it's a matter of FAITH.
I'm only trying to say one CAN believe the bible and CAN believe science and not have any crisis where the two don't agree. For Bill Nye to say my beliefs hold myself or my children back because we don't believe in science is false. I do believe in science, I just also acknowledge a creator.
Freya, unlike many of these other people, I LOVE your belief. It's crazy, but I honestly never even thought of it that way...it makes perfect sense being a Christian myself. As you said yourself, it's all opinion, so whether or not your prediction is right or not doesn't phase me because God doesn't demand that we all know the exact knowledge of the Earth's origin. If he did, he would have outlined it in detail and explained it fully lol. Reading your response, I had an epiphony, which was pretty cool. Thank you for your feedback, and I'm sorry so many people criticized you immediately, they did the same to me. Clearly, most of the people on this page are the minority of Americans who are athiest, so no matter what Christians like us are gonna be bashed here. That is the ignorance of these people...yell at us to be more open minded, and then when we explain our beliefs they suddenly close their "open minds" to our side of the coin.
You said they can do it without any mental flips, but you're making quite a few mental flips here. The same kind I'd have to make in order to assert that the universe was created last Tuesday.
Thank you Robert, I'm glad I gave you food for thought. However, I can't take credit for the idea... my professor in Systematic Theology (my minor in college) is the one who introduced the idea to me, and it made sense. So there are plenty of other Christians who don't have a crisis when it comes to making the bible and science compatible.
@andrew
What mental flips? I'm not changing a single thing the bible says, nor am I denying the evidence of science. I'm pointing out they can both be believed without one contradicting the other. What flips? I'm not denying the literal nature of the bible by proposing some young earth theory, or saying the bible is an allegory, nor am i denying the evidence from science. To me, it's all in agreement... it's the choice of belief in a creator or not. I choose to believe.
You asked WHY would God go through all that trouble? Well, there are obvious elements of physics, ecosystems, energy from the sun, animal life, the atmosphere, orbits of the planets, etc etc etc that ALL must be in place for our planet to be survivable and support the life of humans. All of those things were needed to be in place and be in a mature, stable state in order for Adam to survive and thrive. Without those systems, mankind would have died. Of COURSE everything had to be in a mature state in order to support the human life created. What doesn't make sense about that?
@Freya, You actually have an earlier premise then which all other points of your argument rest on:
1) The bible is true. Therefore your following points can also be potentially true.
That aside, where science disagrees with you is that light, planetary motion or the geological structure data shows of our own earth were not and could not be created in their "mature" state. You also have to ignore the mountain of fossil data, dna evidence, etc that points to the transitional development of life on this planet.
Setting ALL of that aside and assuming that man was created in his mature state, why did god stop with only two creations? He perhaps enjoys the idea of mothers having se.x with their sons and fathers having se.x with their daughters?
Let's see, I will ignore the talking snake of the bible. Shall we move on to Noah's ark. Also feel that is inline with science? Or what about making the earth stop rotating so the day would last longer, or parting the red sea so people could walk across on dry land?
I have to ask, exactly what science books have you been reading?
Yes but why the almost ten billion year gap between 'universe created' and 'earth'? Like I said, the mental gymnastics are the kind undergone to say the universe has only existed since last tuesday, the whole 'everything was exactly as it would be in an old universe, even our memories, but is actually less than a week old'.
That is a distinct possibility, it is epistemologically possible to assert the universe is less than a week old and you'd use the same types of defense you're using to say the universe appears old because god made it mature. Yeah, you can defend the position and say it is logically consistent, but it still requires mental gymnastics to actually seriously hold such a position.
Whyaresomanypeoplestupid?, when you come up with a coherent arguement then I'll start believing that you study string theory. And I never said that Einsten believed in God. He simply believed that there was an intellegence behind the creation of the universe. That's an indisputable fact. Sounds a whole lot like "Creationism" to me.
Carbon dating, anatomical similarities between species (and the corresponding increase in the number of these similarities as the species being compared are recent in origin), embryo similarities, and the genetic similarities are my the evidence in argument. Also doesn't the fact that we are with each day getting better at genetically modifying plants convince you that organisms can evolve and must have evolved from a self-sustaining chemical chain reaction? And string theory disproves the whole six day thing.
What do you got?
WhyareYOUsostupid?, your premise is that when a Christian argues against evolution he is argueing that evolution doesn't exist. Shows your ignorance on Christianity. Christians range from believing that the universe and mankind was created 10,000 years ago to believing that the universe is billions of years old and only mankind was created 10,000 years ago. Either way, it required a God to put that in motion. Study the miracles that must have ocurred in order for the Big Bang to have happened. Most striking, the amount of energy required to keep all that mass from quickly collapsing back on itself and how it is that the universe is EXPANDING ever more rapidly. Defies all SCIENCE. In either case evolution ocurring AFTER that is NOT disputed. However, we COLLECTIVELY reject the notion that we evolved from apes. And the difference in genetic divergence among MODERN MAN around the world and the genetic divergence seen in apes blows a HOLE in theory that we evolved from apes. At the very best, it places our branching about 8 million years ago. This date was forced on anthropoligists studying fossils by the geneticists whose work beginning in the 90's completely threw all the previous work into disarray. How can we question science? They are always right!