 |
|
|
|
 "The idea of deep time ... explains so much of the world around us," Bill Nye said in the viral video.
August 31st, 2012
04:34 PM ET
Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own videoBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host. "Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday. "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," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.
Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories "At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God." Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible. The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom. "[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past." For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom. In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state. A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world. Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old. "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 says in his viral video. Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years. "Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?" Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years. The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God. |
  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.  |
|
|
|
I was made to view an entire Ken Ham lecture series back at my high school (people riding around on dinosaurs!), and it took me years to get his false logic and false "facts" (huge layer of water around the earth for Noah that, through enthalpic properties, would cause us to actually fry!) out of my head. Ham ruined science for me for years by taking out all of the wonder and joy from the pursuit of knowledge. Ham's belief that he must, at all costs, prove that Genesis, as we have it, is word-for-word truth despite any evidence that says contrary, for fear that otherwise the entire Christian faith will crumble, shows to me that this man cannot be considered a scientist, and neither can his two cohorts. Given the many different muscle groups and parts of muscles that don't appear in certain populations of current humans (I'm one of the 16% without a palmaris longus), foramen (holes) in the skull that exist with nerves in only 1% of the population, muscles and muscle variations appearing or missing in huge varieties of people throughout the population, I have no clue why an anatomist is trying to prove that only Genesis is the logical explanation for what he studies and tries to prove the other ancestors of humans consistently living alongside us. But knowing how many of these "scientists" give testimony of how they knew they had to abandon their beliefs that their studies have proven so that they could keep faith, I really don't know why Ham's organization's reply is considered news.
Lord, I have seen the Devil. He wears a bow tie and looks like the guy from American Pickers.
Religion...what a wonderful thing...Look what god taught these people
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/01/world/asia/pakistan-girl-blasphemy/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
I'm for banning religious teachings to anyone until they're 18.
Wouldn't happen though, because by then, most people would be to smart to fall for it.
Yeah, let's start banning things. That's worked for the Christians in the past. Oh yeah, except for that Gaileol idea about the Earth not being the center of the universe...
* too smart * 😉
Yardley, you're a Canadian, I can tell a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Dave: yep. Busted! LOL.
But I don't disagree. Banning things is not the way to go.
Yardley: No banning, agreed... from one canuck to the other 😉
These poeple crack me up...
""At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes.."
Last I checked, the "Truth" requires proof. Since you can't prove the existence of god.....creationism is thereby false
Nothing like "hitting back" with an imaginary bat. Ouch, oh wait.
Atheists are knows for their view that there is no God. But what other ideas do they hold that builds up humanity? If they want to tear down some walls, then they should have a plan to replace those walls with something other than a void.
Young people can learn about evolution, but toward what end? If there is no God, and if one's life ends with death, then what moral priorities do atheists promote to keep young people from eroding more deeply into selfishness and greed? We have enough of those things already.
If a good quality is removed from society, then society becomes less 'good'. One can discuss the strengths and weaknesses of formal religion, but among the strengths has been to weave together a fabric of social good... feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, etc.
Atheists need to set strong agenda filled with similar goodness, and not merely one of attacking dissimilar circles of thought.
Formal religion certainly rebukes atheists every chance it gets... but it still allows time and resources to run hospitals, offer aid, and comfort those who have little food and clothing. Government also has adopted those ideas through the elected officials who bring their religion with them to their leadership positions.
Atheists need to announce and promote how they will do better. If they do not, they will grow in numbers, but find themselves with little direction. Everyone will do what they think is right in their own eyes. I believe atheists will find that being 'good' is just as difficult a task as formal religion has found it to be.
Bil,
You really should stop drinking the kool-aid
The idea that you need a "god" to direct your moral compass is mostly put forth by those who have problems with their moral compass. These people are psychologically trying to replace the parents the had when they were young with "god". They can't wean themselves off of the proverbial t*t. If you need someone or something to direct you moral compass, outside of you own mind, then you must be morally weak . . . "If people are only good because they fear punishment and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
Toward what end you ask? Rationalism. That is a reward unto itself.
I've seen an entire video lecture series by Ken Ham. Besides teaching how humans lived alongside dinosaurs (the K-T line in rock layers filled with Iridium, linked only to the K-T extinction event (meteor) shows no humans or close ancestors living with dinosaurs) he also taught that Noah's flood was caused by a canopy of water that surrounded the earth as well as below it. The canopy needed cannot exist due to the nature of water, and if such a layer existed, we'd be frying in 200 degree heat, of which our proteins would, in a simple sense, denature. His "facts" are bull that are quickly proven incorrect with anyone with basic knowledge in the sciences. That is why people who are atheists and know science do not respect him or his organization or his views. They are bull.
Why the hell do I want to teach my kids this bull?!
i like living in canada because this kind of stuff isnt a problem
You Canadians are God-less heathens!!
Amen brother! Pardon the expression.
No we just the fun of laughing at the ridiculousness of the debates over the most basic of things...cheap entertainment for us! 🙂
martha get my shotgun theres a jesus on my fawaful again.
i have a 13 year old daughter and i've told her both sides, as soon as she started asking about it. when she asks me which one i think is true i tell her i'm leaning toward evolution, but i can't be completely sure. i tell her she is free to explore either and make her own decisions and i will be here for her.
Right on dude. You're doing the right thing, letting the child develop on her own, develop her own beliefs. Not ramming one specific, clergy approved, idea down her throat.
Both sides? Did you also tell her about the Jamshid creation account, Kumulipo, Mandé creation myth, Pangu, Raven in Creation, Serer creation myth, Sumerian creation myth, Tungusic creation myth or Unkulunkulu to name a few? If you want to be fair, why stop at the Judeo Christion creation story? Include them all!
I raised my 18 year old daughter without a belief and was completely open with her when she asked questions about anything. Books of almost any form have been her greatest resource throughout her life. In her last year of high school, she took a comparative religions course, that gave her insight in to a wide variety of belief's....it was the best course she could have taken.
Science trumps religion without any effort.
Religion is created. Science is what we are about.
One science. Hundreds of "religions".
NO DEBATE NEEDED
Many of the greatest scientists known to mankind were members of one religious denomination or other i.e., Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Bohr, Darwin (Darwin didn’t even come up with the term “Survival of the fittest”. He mentioned it twice. A word he did use was “love” – 95 times – in The Ascent of Man), Lavoisier, Heisenberg, Curie, Fermi, Mendel, Oppenheimer.
List goes on and on. Religious belief and science go hand-in-hand.
Those that know of Charles Darwin know of the terrible time he had with accepting how his discoveries proved his faith wrong. He lamented over it terribly, proving wrong the young religious naturalist that was excited to go on a boat trip. Einstein is nothing close to what one would call religious, and his letters can either be argued for deist or atheist, with atheism having a stronger leaning. I apologize for not having personal knowledge of the religious lives of the other scientists mentioned. 🙂
@ lovesmicrobiology:
In a letter to a correspondent at the University of Utrecht in 1873, Darwin expressed agnosticism:
I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came from and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty.
Given his body of works with biographers, I see a "coming of age" struggle, and see how this particular letter can be taken in context as agnosticism and/or atheism. But anything further would probably be an argument over semantics. Given that I am of the camp that atheist is agnosticism, though not necessarily all agnostics are atheists, I think with at least ideas, if not word choice, we both agree, even if we don't agree on word choice.
NO Einstein never believed in a Personal God. And he is quoted on that. Regardless of the other Scientist being deist where there are many. They didn't let their belief stop them from discovering more about our natural world. You seem to forget that Galileo was put under house arrest for discovering Jupiter by the Catholic Church. The Same Catholic church banned autopsy of dead body fearing that no soul would be found. Darwin didn't publish his book for nearly 30 years. Because he knew the type of controversy it was going to cause. There are countless examples of Religion trying to hide science. And we are at an age where its all around you. From cell phones, to the internet, to even ramen noodle in the Microwave. That same science that tells us the Oceans are rising. Are the same ones that saved hundreds of lives during Issac. That same science that tells us we are related to apes and all other life. Is more then telling who's the baby daddy on Maury Povich. And that same Science that explains an expansion event in our Universe. Is the same that put a Nuclear powered car with bluetooth on Mars. If you want to see suppression of Science. Look to any at many fundamentalist Arab nations. Where Religion runs the state. Only 2 working scientist in Muslim countries has ever won the Nobel Peace Prize. And its not a walk in the park to get won. We are coming into an age where Science doesn't have to bow to Region. It stands on its own merit. Science is Testable, Repeatable, observable And more important Fallible. Bill is right. We shouldn't have to censor ourselves to comfort their ignorance.
There are about 7,770,000 species on the earth. If there are 90% insects, and we consider them to be all very small, (which we know they are not), we could say that each pair, in order to fit on the "ARK" would need 4 square inches for two of them, plus their food for more than 40 days (Actually I think it was about a year, but we will go with about 40 days just to give the bible thumpers a chance, it supposably rained for 40 days). Since 12 inches squared = 144 cubic inches, 144 cubic inches / 4 cubic inches = 36 per square foot. We know that, the insect population is about 80 – 90% of the entire 7,770,000 species, so making a conservative estimate, we will say it is 90%. 7,770,000 * 90% = 6,993,000 insects. 6,993,000 insects / 36 insect per square foot = 174,250 square foot needed to house all of these insects, and their food. Now the animals. 7,770,000 – 6,993,000 = 777,000 animals. We will again be conservative, and say that each animal requires only 3 cubic feet living space and three cubic foot for 40 days supply of food. 9 cubic feet total for each pair of species. They say the average size is actually that of a sheep, which would be more like 9 cubic feet for the two sheep alone. So, 777,000 animals x 9 cubic feet = 6993000 cubic feet required to house them. Now we will take the total needed for the insects and the total for the animals and add them together. 6,993,000 square foot + 174,250 square foot = 7,167,250 square feet needed on the whole "ark". (We will not even count the space needed for the humans, breathing space for all of the animals, and space needed for the structure of the "ark" itself.) Now the dimensions of the "ark" are well known. The length of the ark – 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits". This is equivalent to a length of 450 feet, a breadth of 75 feet and a height of 44 feet (assuming an 18" cubit); or 500 Feet, 83 feet and 49 feet (if it was the Egpytian 20" cubit). (We will use the larger size, just to give the bible thumpers a better chance) 500 x 83 x 49 gives 2,033,500 cubic feet. But wait, we needed 7,167,250 cubic feet! That is 3.5 times more space needed than the "ark" provided! And, we did not calculate for breathing space, space for humans, or internal structure of the ark itself! So, bible thumpers, please tell me, what did "god" do, shrink the animals?
Your weakness is that you are using the Bible as some sort of scientific textbook. It's not and was never intended to be.
and what about the feces!
Coldbreath: In that case, if that is a "weakness", and you rely on a book that is not accurate, I have a $500,000 home in Florida I will sell you for $50,000. It's a good deal. . .
Good point hghhhghghghghhhhr, it would have piled up deep below deck, as it is piling up deep here in this forum.
I simply/personally do not see any contradiction with religious belief and science.
Your need to see it in such a black& white manner, either/or scenario – is in fact a weakness.
I enjoy both and have NO problems with it.
@coldbreath
Nice to hear from someone that has a christian point of view admit that his bible is just a bunch of man written stories and fables. " Even a god that requires evolution", but a god should not have to require anything, period, full stop. Now religions and their leaders require money, the more money the better, you are being sold snake oil. Make up any kind of imaginary friend in your head and enjoy, but please do not support any organized religions, you are being scammed if you do.
@"coldbreath"
Nice to hear from someone that has a christian point of view admit that his bible is just a bunch of man written stories and fables. " Even a god that requires evolution", but a god should not have to require anything, period, full stop. Now religions and their leaders require money, the more money the better, you are being sold snake oil. Make up any kind of imaginary friend in your head and enjoy, but please do not support any organized religions, you are being scammed if you do.
There are countless species on earth with new microbial lifeforms being discovered every day. Microbes win out over insects by far, and Noah did not have enough room for the constantly changing microbes on his ark. I have no clue where you pulled those numbers out of, but I assure you that the wide biological diversity represented in nature cannot fit aboard that arc, and the amount of pressure caused by water weight on all the microbes would have caused a dangerously barren world where the animals that exited the ark wouldn't have enough oxygen production available if all land-dwelling microbes were wiped out by a "Noah event" strong enough to cause a huge shift of plate techtonics or to quickly carve out the grand canyon. The gases and hosts needed for many of them, and environments needed to keep such life forms alive given their adaptions for their specific climates that they can survive in, is not able to be reproduced on a boat. The macro life forms, given their necessary differences, and given how with all the adaptions for species needed within the fossil data, cannot have the necessary environments for their survival, let alone their travel to the ark, provided on the ark. Many macro multi-cellular lifeforms would be out of their own temperature comfort zones, and some would cease to function or would have biological processes irreversibly damaged to the point that they could no longer function. The 6000 years given would not allow enough genetic mutations to occur to account for the genetic variations that could result from the ancestors from the ark, if Ham's "only mutation is a bad mutation" pre-hypothosis was correct. I know the few genetic alleles attributed to dog size and color and fur size are used to TRY and show how the backwards mutations could produce the fantastic biodiversity that exists, but unfortunately those few easily manipulated genes are not enough to cause the huge changes in form that need the large amount of time that empirical evidence states actually happened.
LOL! See, I drank the Kool-aid so much back then, that I couldn't tell at first with little sleep that you were pointing out the issues. Yup... its bed time... lol
One can be a rational, science believing human being and at the same time be a immortal and spiritual being.
Advances are made by answering questions – discoveries are made by questioning the answer.
There is a conception with God that is perfectly compatible with science – even a God that requires evolution.
A view of God that can be defended logically, is rational, sensible and does not violate the law of Physics.
Which God??? Or account of Creationism??? You seem to forget there's over 2000 active religions around the world. A religion in the middle of the African jungle could be more right then yours. And yet probably has the same amount of proof as yours. Very Little
It does not take much thinking to figure out that the bibile is a hoax . . . . simply picture Noah . . . . leading tyrannosaurus rex onto the ark.
Even religious people are supposed to know that the old testament was never supposed to be read as literal. Anyone who thinks of it literally is a fool. There are allowed to be people who are religious and intelligent as well. It can be done.
Squirrels once feasted on giant squid. Lizards run with scissors in the rye.
The "god" arguement was, is, and will always be, weak when brought up against evolution. If I were a perfect, all-knowing all-powerful being, I certainly would not create a world where sentient beings must prey upon other sentient beings to survive. If all the animals came from the ark, why are the marsupials only in Austrailia, and likewise with many other endemic species? If "god" is all-knowing and knows the past and future, why is there a old and new testament? The real problem with the "god" theory supporters is that they are naive, gullible and under-educated, or simply mentally lazy. Those who are mentally lazy accept what others say as true without verifying it. It's simply another aspect of evolution manifesting itself, deception is a survival mechanism, political and religious leaders have mastered it.
Rational Libertarian said...
"So what? We only know of physical reality. There's no evidence for anything else."
The earliest astrophysicists where also theologians. Sir Arthur Eddington made Einstein famous back in 1919. Eddington led the expedition that measured the bending of star light and startled the world that made Einstein famous. Eddington was a mystic who wrote a book in 1929, “Science and the Unseen World”. A book that would have not surprised anyone in the religious or spiritual arena but would have certainly contradicted what most scientists seemed to think were the basis for reality. But now with String Theory there’s lot’s of talk about other dimensions and other realms. So it’s really not that farfetched to think that there are unseen worlds – what spiritual traditions have spoken about for centuries.
That's just one example. Search, read and learn. The latter should be taken in a "comprehensive" sense.
You keep making irrelevant arguments about Scientist being religious . There's many members in Science that may believe in a god from many religion. But it doesn't stop them from seeing what the evidence says not where they want to lead it. But sorry What we have leaned in the modern science. Religion didn't even know about. Sorry the bible doesn't tell you about how gravity works. The Koran doesn't say anything about DNA. Its misleading for the religious to try and read modern science into their so called holy books 2000 years old. The difference is these scientist brung evidence. Even when Einstein disagreed with Bohr and Quantum mechanics. He didn't get in front of a podium and preach it like so called Dogma. When went out and tried to disprove with evidence, math, and science. And for him he lost. But both contributed alot Einstein an Agnostic Atheist and Bohr who may have started out Christian. Buddhism influenced more of his and his thinking of the atom. Regardless of their believe. Science is the ultimate put up or shut up.
dear cnn, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but the universe is 14.5 billion years old (or 13.5 billion, if recent data is to be believed).
Please get your facts straight.
Scientists who believe that [it] encompasses everything, every possible reality rather than simply the physical reality (which can be studied very well) – than they’ve crossed the border from being a scientist and become a believer in scientism.
So what? We only know of physical reality. There's no evidence for anything else.
Rational Libertarian said...
"So what? We only know of physical reality. There's no evidence for anything else."
The earliest astrophysicists where also theologians. Sir Arthur Eddington made Einstein famous back in 1919. Eddington led the expedition that measured the bending of star light and startled the world that made Einstein famous. Eddington was a mystic who wrote a book in 1929, “Science and the Unseen World”. A book that would have not surprised anyone in the religious or spiritual arena but would have certainly contradicted what most scientists seemed to think were the basis for reality. But now with String Theory there’s lot’s of talk about other dimensions and other realms. So it’s really not that farfetched to think that there are unseen worlds – what spiritual traditions have spoken about for centuries.
That's just one example. Search, read and learn. The latter should be taken in a "comprehensive" sense.
If you spent as much time studying th Bible as you do looking for evidence to disprove a book you do not understand, you likely wouldn't result to name-calling to try to bolster your theories. The whole idea that God operates or is constrained by the human concept of "time" is really quite laughable. You don't believe in God because you cannot fathom God. To understand that requires faith. Another concept you do not understand. If you really want to dis-prove the Bible, I recommend that you read it and really try to understand it. Look for the concepts behind the words.
I reccommend you read it more . . . obviously you have not read it enough yet, because you have not figured out what a fraud it is.
Quit using the bible as a smokescreen for your ignorance. Without logic and science you wouldn't even have a platform, your computer, to express your compromised world view. God created Bill Nye to get us out of the dark ages of ignorance.
DEAR JIM: The Bible provides us with a moral and ethical framework within which we might better conduct our lives with decency and humility. But the Bible is not ... repeat NOT a science textbook.
The BIBLE is like a LAW BOOK, its all in the interpretation. Science is FACT. If everyone followed the moral compass that the Bible talks about there would be no WARs. But through mans time on EARTH more Wars were started over Religion. So it seems to me religion has been a good excuse to kill other humans. Is that the moral compass the BIBLE is teaching? You dont believe in my book over here so you need to die? Get real people. There is difference between Faith and Science. And from where I sit I dont see anyone practicing Faith like it was intended for . As far as someone said in a earlier post about young kids going more deeply into selfishness and Greed is ludicrous. Because I see more selfishness and Greed coming from the people who do practice Religion. They use that as front to make themselves look like they are good citizens and then turn around do the exact opposite. So for the Creationists they need to clean up their own backyard first for their argument to mean anything.
Dearest Jim,
I've read the bible, though I admit I strained through the dry laws. Harry Potter is better written and has less inaccuracies and retcons with the plot. I've given your religion a chance, found your god to have just as much proof for existence as Harry Potter, has just as much historical evidence, and just as much items for sale in our local tourist district. I guess the only real difference is that one has a much better theme park than the other.
Prayer changes things .
Yeah, changes people into Borgs.
Prayer leads to laziness and a lack of self-motivation to improve one's own lot in life, thinking a "higher power" will aid instead.
idiots. their creation theory is a plagiarism of babylonian creation myths. read a little history please!!!!!!!
The Babylonians had a mutated version of the Genesis events trying to portray Gods Truth in their terms. Read history? God IS history. God bless
just spewin: Unlike you, not all of us reside within our Mommy's basement.
What is this "mommy's basement" argument that people are always using? It makes absolutely no sense!
Chris: Sure it makes sense when one thinks about it. It simply points out the fact that some people have not lived life outside of the bubble of the family unit to see for themselves that there is so much more.