 |
|
|
|
 Science educator Bill Nye, left, will face off against creationist Ken Ham in Tuesday night's debate.
February 4th, 2014
01:17 PM ET
Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken HamEditor's note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on Tuesday at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be live-streamed at 7 p.m. ET on CNN.com, and CNN's "Piers Morgan Live" will host both Ham and Nye at 9 p.m. Tuesday after the debate. Opinion by Bill Nye, Special to CNN (CNN) - A lot of people have been asking why I accepted Ken Ham’s invitation to debate the origins of life Tuesday night at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. In short, I decided to participate in the debate because I felt it would draw attention to the importance of science education here in the United States. What keeps this country in the game economically is our ability to innovate. New ideas lead to new technologies, which drive new businesses and new opportunities. Technological innovations absolutely cannot be created without fundamental understanding of science, the means by which we know nature. How many young adults and taxpayers use mobile phones? How many of us rely on global navigation systems that use satellites high above the Earth’s surface to find our way around? Even if you eschew smartphones, you rely on the system to keep airplanes in the sky and ships at sea on their routes. Modern farmers plant seeds in fields with extraordinary precision using information beamed from satellites in space. MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm Debating Bill Nye For the United States to maintain its leadership in technology, we need well-educated science students. To allow our students to come of age without the knowledge gained through the extraordinary scientific insights and diligence of our ancestors would deprive them of understanding of nature and our place in the cosmos. It would also rob our students of their future. Without scientists and engineers to create new technologies and ways of doing society’s business, other economies in other countries will out-compete the United States and leave our citizens behind. Tuesday's debate will be about whether Ham’s creation model is viable or useful for describing nature. We cannot use his model to predict the outcome of any experiment, design a tool, cure a disease or describe natural phenomena with mathematics. These are all things that parents in the United States very much want their children to be able to do; everyone wants his or her kids to have common sense, to be able to reason clearly and to be able to succeed in the world. The facts and process of science have enabled the United States to lead the world in technology and provide good health for an unprecedented number of our citizens. Science fuels our economy. Without it, our economic engine will slow and eventually stop. It seems to me that Ham is a fundamentalist. Around the world there are billions of people, who embrace the facts and process of modern science, and they enjoy their faith. By all accounts, their faith enriches their lives. These people have no conflict with their faith and science. Ham is unique in this regard. Fundamentally, Ham’s creation model is not part of modern science. His idea has no predictive quality or ability. It provides no means to learn more about the world around us. It does not enable students to make consistent sense of nature. So, we’ll see. We’ll see if his model stands up to traditional scientific inquiry: If a certain claim is true, then we would expect a certain outcome. I’m excited and very much looking forward to the encounter. Bill Nye is a science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society. The views expressed in this column belong to Nye. soundoff (2,162 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 Next »
« Previous entryKen Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
We are at a crossroads in this country. Are we going to move forward, or backward? This is what's at stake. Even as we advance scientifically, technologically, economically, and socially–our society is being challenged like never before in my lifetime by the enemies of reason–like Ken Ham. Oh he would deny it certainly–has in fact done so, claiming to "love science".
Nobody who claims to love science would cling to the delusion that the earth is only 6000 years or so old. No one who claims to love science would cling to the delusion that all organisms were created by a being 6000 years ago more or less as they are now. There is simply no excuse for such willful ignorance in this day and age.
Evolution is an observable FACT. It has been tested and CONFIRMED repeatedly through experiment and observation. If you believe otherwise, set up an experiment to disprove an evolutionary hypothesis, then docu-ment your results and publish them in a scientific journal for peer review–then we can talk.
And don't claim to "Love Science"–at least be honest and admit you ha-te it except for when you use your cell phone, or computer, or medical care, or any of the other fruits of our scientific endeavors.
Neil deGrasse Tyson–a nonbeliever–does an eloquent job exposing what is at stake in this clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q
Evolution is a THEORY. Only a theory.
"Evolution is a THEORY. Only a theory."
The very fact that you stated that, proves that you are scientifically illiterate, and have NO idea what you are talking about.
Bingo. Evolution is a theory, but there is no "only" about it. Theory is as good as things get in science. Theories hold together the puny observation points we sometimes call "facts". Criticizing something as "only a theory" is like wearing a board around your neck reading "I'm scientifically illiterate."
And religion is man-made.
Yeah, so is gravity. Idiot.
A scientific theory. Not a homer simpson theory covering where he lost his underpants. The common use of the word and the scientific use are two different things.
And you don't know what a scientific theory is . . .
No, evolution is a fact. How it works is a theory. You're an idiot. And, that is not a theory, either. You just proved it.
A fact? Really? You were there over these billions of years watching it?
Not only is evolution a fact, evolution is the greatest unified theory in science! Its the ultimate scientific explanation of everything, and includes absolutely mind-boggling amounts of evidence from different fields such as Astronomy, Cosmology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Oceanography, Biology, and countless more. Not only does all of the evidence from these different fields of study all point to the same conclusion, which is essentially evolution, they all match up together to become the greatest unified theory in science. Like Bill says, if you can find evidence of something that contradicts the greatest scientific achievement, do it!!!
Evolution has been observed many times. It is also possible to manipulate evolution via artificial selection. derp
David,
Do you know what Plate Techtonics is? It also takes place over billions of years. We don't have to live that long though, we can still detect it and measure it. The same is true with evolution. With some species, we can observe evolutionary changes just in a single lifetime. Mutations have been found in humans and many other organisms. We have done experiments with microbes and insects (changes are more easily observed in smaller organisms since they evolve much more quickly).
"A fact? Really? You were there over these billions of years watching it?"
It is a fact because of what we observe in the universe. Everything that we as humans have observed about the universe, which is all stuff we can see and measure, all points to the same conclusion, which is the theory of evolution. Of course its impossible to see it all happen, but the evidence left behind and the processes that occur that we can watch give us all the evidence we need.
You don't know much about science. Evolution itself is indeed an observable fact. It can be observed even in a single lifetime. Evolution is nothing more than change and diversification of life. It is NATURAL SELECTION that is a theory. And a theory is the highest form of knowledge in science. A Scientific Theory is not a mere hunch, like a layman's theory. Scientific Theories are explanations for a given set of facts that includes at least one TESTABLE hypothesis, and if that hypothesis does not hold up, the theory is discarded. A Scientific Theory is far more important than a mere fact. I would say that Natural Selection is on firmer ground than Einstein's theory of relativity, though others may disagree. Evolution by Natural Selection has been confirmed by mountains of evidence. It is true beyond any reasonable doubt, although some details are still not fully understood.
I see. So you've actually seen a monkey evolve into a human? Or a fish evolve into something that can breathe on land?
Sure, natural selection can be proven. So what?
Dave,
Again, wrong. We have observed this through the fossil record. Apes and men clearly have a common ancestor. Have you ever been to the zoo and seen a Chimpanzee exhibit? Get as close as you can, and put aside your preconceptions, then look carefully at them. Look at their hands, their fingers and fingernails, their ears, and so on. They share something >98% of our DNA. Google Australopithecus and Ho-mo Erec-tus. There are many predecessors of ours that clearly show our evolution from a shared ancestor.
Dave claims to have a law degree. He wasn't terribly specific. Perhaps he's a paralegal. Perhaps he's a law clerk. Perhaps he's a bailiff or a court reporter. One thing is for certain: My cat argues a case better than Dave does. Even if Dave actually studied to be a lawyer, I can't imagine that he actually passed the bar.
"I see. So you've actually seen a monkey evolve into a human? Or a fish evolve into something that can breathe on land?"
The fact that you believe evolution explains human origins as descending from monkeys only can mean one thing, and that is that you are scientifically illiterate, have no idea what evolution actually is. Please refrain from spewing your nonsense out into the universe before you fact check, and contribute to the even worse dumbing down of this world than it already is. By the way, there are fish who can breathe out of water. There is also a great explanation of their evolution...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_fish
One more thing I'd like to add to this discussion thread. As far as I know (and professional biologists–please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), not only is Natural Selection the BEST theory to explain the evolution of life in our biosphere, it is the ONLY scientific theory we have. No one has come up with a better or even an alternative testable scientific theory to explain the change and diversification of life. "Intelligent Design" claims to, but the ID folks have yet to formulate a single testable hypothesis or performed any experiments!!! Until they do, they cannot claim to be doing science. That is because they are Creationists in lab coats. They are pretending science, not doing it. They are starting with their conclusion (though they take pains to avoid saying it explicitly), and then trying to find evidence to support it, mainly by making up lies or phony arguments against Natural Selection or even the fact of evolution, and they are attempting to do an end-run around the scientific process by seeking political support to teach their religious claims as scientific facts without earning the right to do so through the scientific method.
You misunderstand the word "theory", unless we should be expecting Ken Ham's next debate to include him trying to disprove the theory of gravity. Based on tonight's debate I wouldn't even be surprised.
Such a nice, funny, trite reply.
Nevertheless, evolution is still a theory. And I understand perfectly what "theory" means.
For me, calling it a "theory" is giving it way too much credence. I would rather call it a "fairy tale", because that's what it is.
Do you comprehend the scientific meaning of Theory, Dave? It's not the same as the non-scientific meaning. Perhaps you should actually learn about evolution before you dismiss it.
David!
(Sigh and facepalm).
NO. You clearly do not understand what a Scientific Theory is. You prove this with every post you make. You may understand what a layman's idea of a theory is–but it is not the same thing. Did you even bother to read my post above? A scientific theory is an explanation that includes testable hypotheses and observed facts. It must be testable, and if it fails the test, it must be discarded. If it passes test after test, you just embarrass yourself by trying to dismiss it as a fairy tale–it makes you look profoundly ignorant. It's like saying the Theory of Gravity is a fairy tale.
If you think the Theory of Natural Selection is wrong, then design and experiment and demonstrate it. It CAN be falsified. Then you can publish your results for peer review. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you succeed. But good luck, because no one has ever been able to do so.
"Evolution is an observable FACT."
Primordial soup to people evolution has never been observed.
"Primordial soup to people evolution has never been observed."
You sir, are also scientifically illiterate, and incredibly ignorant to the OVERWHELMING amounts of evidence of observable evolution. Seriously, does anyone pay attention in science class???
Several things here Paul. First of all, Evolution by Natural Selection is NOT a theory about the beginning of life–that would be abiogensis. Natural Selection is about change and diversification of life over time. So right from the get-go, you need to discuss primordial soup to the first cell as a separate subject.
Second, you are making another error in taking a huge leap from "primordial soup" to "people". How about prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic? How about insects to arachnids? How about Eohippus to Orohippus? Sure–if you go from sludge to humans–who could believe that? But this is not what evolution says. We evolved very slowly, over billions of years. Life gradually grew in size, complexity and diversity.
Don't believe me if you don't want to–but our DNA does not lie.
Paul,
Carl Sagan does a good job describing evolution here. I'm sure there are updates that could be added since this was done back in 1980, but I think overall it still holds up well.
I encourage you to watch the entire series. I'm sure it can be found on YouTube. You will come away a more intelligent and informed person–like anyone else who watches it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl89HIJ6HDo
"Primordial soup to people evolution has never been observed."
Turns out that life has a hard time living for millions of years, but the record they leave behind in the layers of old dirt and rocks leave a pretty good indicator of what happened over time and what did not get airdropped on the planet by some invisible creature that decided he doesnt want to hang around anymore burning us with its magnifying glass.
However speciation has been observed. There were organisms in nature whose offsprings refused to mate with offsprings from the same ancestor, effectively separating into two new species.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
There you go, Paul.
I saw pictures of Rachel Welch running around with dinosaurs. How does science explain THAT? 🙂
All mammals are breast fed?
How does something, especially something as vast as our cosmos and all of the organic systems contained therein, come from NOTHING? Why can not a single one of you answer this question. You can mock with all your 'Sky Santa' comments all you want. Heck, some of your barbs are cute, and even a few are funny. That said, why can none of you answer this question?
I responded. I asked questions that you either ignored or didn't see. I will ask the again:
Do you believe in god? If so, do you believe he came from something or nothing?
Hey, sorry about that. Yes, I believe that a being of superior intellect, a designer, a creator who transcends time, is the creator and sustainer of all things. Call it 'God' or whatever. Our human brain cannot comprehend this infinity or externality, but this incapacity does not invalidate it's reality.
You didn't answer my second question. At least, I don't see an answer in that. Your claim is that something, especially something so large as the universe, could come into being from nothing. So I simply ask: Can something so large and powerful as god come into being from nothing? If so, then you have contradicted yourself. If not, then who created god? And who created the creator of god? And so on.
On what is such a belief based? Your opinion? What "feels right" to you? What? You sat around musing about this for a few hours, while sitting on your back side and you came to the "conclusion" that a God thingy makes sense? Is that about the depth of your "research" into the matter? Just why would you believe such an idiotic idea that some vast intelligence created it all? Do you not see the cosmic mistakes right before your very eyes that would preclude such a thing?
Sorry, typo. I meant to say "could NOT come into being from nothing".
The leap from "I don't understand how we got here" to "the Bible is right!" is a tough pill to swallow. Especially with all the evidence saying that Creationism isn't right and flies in the face of some pretty basic facts about our world.
Eric i invite you to read about "virtual particles". They quite literally come out of nothing. Its explained in science. This also explains why black holes eventually evaporate! (Provided that they are not feeding on anything)
I rather suspect the rest of the world would be wise to take away our nukes until we grow up and move beyond this creationism debate. Just it case this whole thing makes a turn for the worse, it's really bad to leave theocracies with nukes.
Evolution is about genetic selection in the interest of preservation of the species. Kinda like how some humans have evolved to investigate their world through science and reason while others are left behind clinging to a bronze-age scrolls.
The scary part is how the rest of the world is getting on with real productive science, and the US is stuck arguing over the legitimacy of creationism as a science. As Bill said, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a bit of a patriot, frankly I wouldn't care if the US was left trapped in the Dark Ages.
The US is still doing plenty of science; we just ignore these backwards nut cases.
The education system has far, far bigger problems than people who don't believe in evolution.
Choosing not to believe the truth does not change the fact that it's the truth. God is real; He has always been, & always will be. He is all knowing. He alone is Creator. He sent His son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty for your sins. You are given the opportunity to choose to accept or reject God's Grace in this action. Those who do not believe the Bible will one day stand before God. My faith will be sight, and sadly, your lack of faith will as well.
Sounds like the plot to a cheesy sci-fi novel.
powerful and intelligent god would not need to ask his son to pay for the sins of the beings he created. Do you folks actually listen to this story as you tell it?
The problem, Jeff, lies in how strongly you insist the Bible be interpreted only according to your personal interpretation. I was troubled how Ham, for example, presents as infallible dogma that the death brought on by Adam & Eve's was not only man's death but death throughout the animal kingdom. Any real study of animals in nature make that claim seem extremely tenuous. And Ham is the vanguard of creationism?
If we rely on objective, factual, verifiable, independent evidence, it is far more likely that you are mentally ill than that your, or any, god exists.
I watched this debate, and I thought it would be a waste of time, and man was I right, you can't argue fact against fiction, no matter what it is if someone believes with all they have that Curious George swallowed the puzzle piece for our sins, then you will never convince them otherwise, whereas science is always open to change, these people are not, nice effort Bill Nye but talking logic with the illogical is a pointless endeavor, even if you have the man in the yellow hat right there with you, you won't convince them and they will trot out examples of a look I have a black friend so I can't be racist mentality, in much the same way Ham did with his repeated attempts at look these guys are smart too yet their insane just like me moves
The only thing that came out of Australia was AC/DC and Crocodile Dundee...and Foster's beer.
And most Australians won't drink Foster's!
Watching Nye take down Ham was like watching the Seahawks destroy the Broncos.
Do you really have to believe in a literal six day creation and believe in the Bible? How about the evolution of man? And what are the implications of the creation/evolution debate? Check out my blog post about it at http://bibleprophecytodaysnews.blogspot.com/.
Oh, let's see...a guy named Noah loaded arctic polar bears and African giraffes into a big boat he built in the middle east when an angry god flooded the whole world, killing innocents including....wait for it....the innocent unborn in the womb. Year, and a guy named Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a whale. Yep...the good old bible book that god wrote.
What parent, in their right mind, would do such a great disservice to their children by preventing them from learning and building on that knowledge. It's shocking.
This is always a great debate. As science moves forward discovering the "how" of creation they move closer to faith. Science now uses terms such as "Intelligent Design" and "God Particle" to describe ideas they don't quite understand today. Science is temporal. Meaning a new science discovery is"fact" only until the next science "fact" of discovery comes along. The earth was in "fact" flat for a 500 years. The earth was then the center of the our universe for several hundred more. Now the science "fact" is the sun is the center of our universe and in "fact" the earth is not anywhere near the "center" of anything. Scientists use math and physics to explain their observations. But math and physics are already part of the universe, not a language "created" by man, but a language "discovered". Science makes statements like the "beauty" of science, the "art" of physics, and how math and music work together in harmony. And this is true. But for science to then say its all a coincidence, a random explosion with no thought or design seems to go against the grain of scientific reason. Its like saying Jonas Salk accidentally came up with the Polio vaccine.
The creation of the universe is just that... a creation.... And as science tells us, the universe continues to be created (unless tomorrow has been canceled.) Why, how, when did it start and when will it end, all good questions. The quest to find out... nobel...
Uh, science does not say the sun is the center of the universe.
The "God particle" was called that because they joked that it was so God D**n hard to detect.
And science doesn't use terms like "intelligent design".
The "God particle" was taken out of context and Higgs regrets mentioning it.
Scientists only say that is possible. What is odd is the folks like you who don't understant why it is possible.
Few actual scientists, btw, use "intelligent design" other than in discussing religious nuts who are trying to mess with the education system
The sun is the center of our solar system...not the center of the universe. You prove Bill Nye correct about science education in this country.
No scientist I have ever heard of uses the expression Intelligent Design unless the are the opposite of intelligent. And there are scientists that understand a great deal about the God Particle. There will never be a time when science and religion agree on anything. Never. They are polar opposites. Science is the study of knowledge based on empirical evidence, religion the belief in something for which evidence is not allowed. The religious need faith, and you can't be faithful if you need evidence.
"Its like saying Jonas Salk accidentally came up with the Polio vaccine."
Fleming accidentally came up with penicillin.
"Fleming recounted that the date of his discovery of penicillin was on the morning of Friday, September 28, 1928.[19] It was a fortuitous accident".
Ref:
Haven, Kendall F. (1994). Marvels of Science : 50 Fascinating 5-Minute Reads. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. p. 182. ISBN 1-56308-159-8.
See what i did there? Discounting your argument......
I have to wonder if any of the PhDs Ken Ham referred to in the debate actually read Genesis. The first book of the Bible describes how God created light first, on "day" one, even though it goes on to state that God didn't create the objects that actually produce light – the sun and stars – until the fourth day. And there cannot be night and day on the first "day" without the earth to cast a shadow, which is not created until the third day. Genesis is simply wrong about basic physics. We can be certain that the God described in Judeo-Christian scriptures does not exist, because there would be evidence of his intervention: Victor Stenger spells out in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, all the scientific evidence we would expect to find but have not.
The evidence for God strikes you every time you look at a clock and know that 24 hours later, it will be the exact same time. Order and complexity.
It's not that there's lack of evidence. It's just that you don't WANT to believe in a God because that may have implications.
The Bible talks about how God is light in 1John 1:5, so there wouldn't be any need for the sun or stars. It's pretty amazing how God created light, which seems to not even be a substance. We can't even define what is made up of! And we can only detect it when it reflects off something else. I'm pretty amazed how something so simple, yet complicated at the same time, was created by a God that loves someone as wicked and awful as myself, and was even willing to die for me!
I know some people have a hard time understanding how there is even a God. But if we think about gravity, it is something that's just there! Well God is someone that is just there! And loves and cares about his creation.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2Pet 3:9) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8) For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord! (Rom. 6:23) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Rom. 10:9)
Evolution is so brilliantly simple that it's a far easier explanation for the diversity of life than some mythical magical being going around creating millions of life forms.
Ken was SOOO wrong when it came to how DNA functions. His trying to claim that no creation can do anything that wasn't already pre-programmed into their DNA. That's like saying new application programs cannot exist because no past program can do something it wasn't originally programmed to do. Ken COMPLETELY failed on the fact that it's the DNA programming that gets changed. That's why different species actually have different DNA sequences, and some have longer DNA sequences than others.
Bill Nye 100 ......Bill Ham a big fat ZERO
correction........Ken Ham
You don't give points for "there's this book..."? 🙂
Nope
"I think my own personal philosophy – one that I think offers a sounder basis for knowledge and wisdom than religion – is based on reason.
Now as soon as soon as we’re having this conversation, as long as we are trying to persuade one another of why you should do something or should believe something, you are already committed to reason. We are not engaged in a fistfight. We’re not bribing each other to believe something. We’re trying to provide reasons. We’re trying to persuade, to convince. As long as you’re doing that in the first place, you’re not hitting someone with a chair, or putting a gun to their head, or bribing them to believe something. You’ve lost any argument you have against reason. You’ve already signed on to reason whether you like it or not. So the fact that we’re having this conversation shows that we are committed to reason. That is the starting point. And from reason many other things follow.
I think science is just the application of reason to the natural world. There’s no such thing as the scientific method in the sense of a recipe or a formula, because techniques in science are always changing to handle the problems in front of us. Science is really an attempt to explain things, to answer the question of why it’s the way it is as opposed to some other way it could have been. And it’s an attempt to do your darndest to figure out the things that you believe are true. It’s the application of reason in the most purified and concentrated form, in a way that I think is continuous with philosophy, with law, with political organization if it’s done right. And I think it also provides much of the grounding for ethics and morality.
At heart, morality is treating other people the way one would want to be treated oneself; and some version of that, of interchangeability of perspectives. It’s the fact that I’m not the only ent-ity in the universe, and I have no grounds for privileging my interests over yours. That’s really what most or all moral systems ultimately boil down to.
And again, as long as I’m talking to someone, as long as I am providing reasons, I can’t say that I am a unique, privileged person and hope for you to take me seriously. Why should you? You’re you, I’m me. Anything that I come up with as a code of behavior … any reason that I give you for how you should behave has to apply to me in order for me not to be a hypocrite or to contradict myself. And once you do that, then I think much or all of morality follows.
And I think that the alternative that many people appeal to, mainly faith, is … immediately refutes itself. Faith means believing something with no good reason to do it. Once you’re talking to someone about what they … what is good to do, what they ought to do, or what they have reasons to do, you cannot appeal to faith. You’re committed to reason."
- Harvard Psychology Professor and Cognitive Scientist, Steven Pinker.
How stupid, "Darwin or Divinity." Yes, some one million species developed simultaneously to be male and female. Unbelievable Darwin could do that. And then there's the laws of physics that govern the universe...I think they came about just a bit prior to Darwin...tho he does look pretty old. Throw in the fact all agree the universe and it's beginning date can be roughly estimated (which leaves out it existed forever). Yup, Darwin. LOL, an old man bitter at God because his daughter died. Note you will never hear a physicist say their is no creator...it's because they are smart enough to realize they could be wrong.
Oh, it wouldn't be that hard to find plenty of physicists who have said they don't believe in a creator. Of course, evolution provides a FAR easier explanation for millions of species than does some mythical magical being creating them all.
Precisely right. Physics explains it all much easier.
Self-replicating molecules kick start the process of naturel selection, the development of DNA and the growth of complexity from simplicity. The big bang not only explains the origin of the universe, but also provides a much simpler and more probable answer than to try and evoke the existence of a immensely complex god, that is highly improbable.
Further the big bang is supported by visible evidence in the cosmic back ground radiation, and the cosmic historical record that we can see in the light that has taken many billions of years to reach our eyes, looking far enough into space we can see the growth of the universe through this light time delay and follow iit back to its beginning seen through the cosmic back ground radiation brought about by the exploding big bang.
Religious idiocy is often based in a fallacious circular argument: God exists because an ancient book written by stone age imbeciles who said it was written by god, and it must be true because god exists.
No wonder they make little sense, its hard to think because their circular arguments make them too dizzy.
scott,
Careful about calling them "stone age" men. That feeds right into the believers' ideas that those guys were right there at the beginning of the "action", which couldn't be further from fact. Bronze age to early Iron age is more like it.
No, I am a physicist I say the probability that there is a creator is 1 divided by infinity. So did Richard Feynmann, Murray Gell-Mann, and countless other scientists. 1 divided by infinity is essentially 0. That is because there is no evidence of a creationism story. In reality, the process is much more mechanical and physics based than you could ever imagine.
Wow. Thank you. Nicely put.
Not all species have a male and female. Evolution says nothing about a creator or creation – just how life evolved to the diversity we see today and the dead-ends that didn't make it. Evolution along with geology, cosmology, and more show that all creation myths are incorrect.
Go back to reading your cereal box. Science is way beyond your wherewithal to comprehend it. Just hide your ignorance behind your comfortable acceptance of the myths your were taught before you were old enough to reason. As for me, I scientifically doubt that a guy named Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a whale. But, believe what you will.