I love Bill Nye the Science Guy. I watched his kid-targeted science show all the time (Science Rules!). Now I love the guy even more. He recently did a Big Think interview during which he tears into creationism.
“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.”
The Internet is all abuzz about his video and creationists are up in arms over it. So, this post is just a quick shout out from a little corner of the Internet in support of the Science Guy. You Rule!
“Denial of evolution is unique to the Unites states. We are the world’s most technological and you could say Japan. But generally the United States is where most of the innovation happens.” Why?
What did he just say? The United States uniquely denies evolution and is the most technological. That’s interesting. Realizing evolution in not the driving force in science apparently has had a positive impact on US inovation.
His process of creating future scientist, voters and tax payers is inconsistent with his own observations.
Thumbs down to the science guy.
I would have to dis-agree with Bill. Unfortunately the United States is not unique in its denial of evolution. We have great company, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan among others.
I would say that we have made our progress in spite of a percentage of our populating denying evolution. Perhaps that part that accepts evolution is that part that has made the progress.
BTW, evolution is not the driving force behind “science”, it is the driving force behind biology.
Heh heh hehe! Chris, you’re such a funny guy! twisting words to promote your religious ideologue. The US may be one, of the most technological advance nations thanks to those of us who work on keeping the likes of you and your ilk replacing science with what has been demonstrated to be useless sophism. The only reason why you criticize Bill Nye is because you hate anyone who accurately critiques you and whose ideas make more sense than the ones you mindlessly promote.
I’ve said a million times that I am ready to be convinced by any positive evidence of creationism and how we can scientifically test how the biblical god is the creator. Post it here any time. No-one is stopping you.
Chris,
I think your views are partly correct. As Bill (not that Bill) pointed out, the United States is not that unique in its denial of evolution. However it’s not just evolution that’s the problem. Science in general is still looked upon with a great deal of miss trust. Global warming, vaccinations, stem cell research, are still major stumbling blocks to modernity. True, we are still one of the front runners in technology, but we are fast losing ground to many other industrial nations. There is plenty of data out there to support this ongoing downward trend. I just don’t think that it is just a coincidence, that those nations who are leaving us behind in their dust, do fully accept evolution as a driving force behind biology. The condition of the United States economy is critical at the moment and evolutionary concepts in research are vital. So how come the creationists cannot or have not, been able to produce a single industrial or scientific application for creationism?
Bill (not that Bill) , Thank You. You are correct evolution is not the driving force behind science. But neither is evolution the driving force behind biology. Evolution is a segment of biology. The claim that biology is incomplete without the concept of molecule to man evolution is nothing more than secular humanist idology.
I usually stay out of these comment debates because I think they’re a waste of time and energy. But your comment, Chris, was so incredibly wrong that you prodded me into breaking my self-imposed rule.
I have a degree in biology. Yes, evolution is the driving force behind biology. Period. Without evolution, biology is just stamp collecting.
Do you have ANY formal education in the life sciences, Chris? No, reading creationist websites and books doesn’t count.
Whew, had to get that off my chest. Carry on, guys.
Chris,
Congratulations, with Brandon’s comment you now have the dubious distinction of becoming the official “Troll of the Florida Citizens for Scienceâ€. Bet that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling?
Brandon,
No point in asking Chris for his academic credentials, his comments from a recent posting shows that he has no respect for academia. He said “That just goes to show titles (PhD and such-my words) can’t replace common senseâ€
Brandon thanks for your thoughts. I might agree that evolution is the driving force behind speciation, but not all biology.
Biology encompasses several other components aside from evolution. For one, the origin of life is virtually unknown. As you know, numerous suggestions for lifes arrival exists of which none have presented a viable hypothesis. The origin of life is not only unknown but the component which is life is unknown. Certainly the fragments of matter, combinations of organs and physical abilities can be observed, but there is no instance where man has visually observed or participated in the assimilation of matter resulting in a living thing. Not knowing how life arose and how or if it was programed to function in the manner we observe, is unknown. Even Dobinsky, who believed the science of his day (embryonic gill slits) who said, “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” was a theistic evolutionist. While many of his ideas may be questionable, he himself believed life could not arise independently without a creator. In context, the statement ‘evolution is the driving force behind biology’ is a statement of faith. And equivalent to saying ‘God is the driving force behind biology’.
Another item is homeostasis which is the ability of organisms to maintain stability or equilibrium of their internal makeup while experiencing external changes. This stability is counterintuitive of what we would expect from evolution. It appears as an oxymoron to suggest homeostasis is a product of evolution. The variations within species and those variations that may produce a new categorical assignment of the variant remain relevant in structure. No notable positive or negative variation has been observed in a living organism which would not be considered commonly feasible to the species. The assumption that a large collection of microevolutionary changes will lead to a large macroevolutionary change has never been observed. Selecting similarities from different biological kingdoms and producing artwork in support of the idea to suggest or confirm common ancestry ignores the simple testable premises of biological stability. So is molecule to man evolution the driving force behind biology? Not here.
Each claim of major change sited is never accepted by all scientists. As validity for the examples of macroevolution crumble away with greater observation, the former hype of the said discovery remains. A good example is ‘Lucy’. Today she is still depicted as an upright, walking, transitional hominid with human hands and feet in textbooks. And we now know with more recent discoveries, that the species was a tree climber with relatively normal ape characteristics. Secular academia’s production of evolutions elaborate phylogenetic story has far more similarities to a craft than a science.
For the Science Guy to claim evolution is the driving force behind biology is to promote a fallacy and say what is not known, he knows. From his secular humanist position, such a claim must be made because there can be nothing else. I disagree.
Chris,
I’m sure that after reading your comments and consequently choking on his chosen beverage, Brandon simply shrugged and figured “what’s the point. However I’m not letting you off the hook. I know that lying for Jesus comes easily to you and so too does supporting these blatant lies with words copied and pasted from other liars. But do you really think if you keep propagating the same old lies over and over again they will magically turn into the truth? Your poor knowledge of science should be an embarrassment to you, either you really are that misinformed or you are in religious denial.
I’ve said this before that I have no intentions of doing your homework for you, that way you can accuse me of presenting no opposing evidence, but do I really have to deconstruct your pathetic questions? First if you are going to place your own bigoted bias to a scientist quote, then at least spell his name correctly, its Dobzhansky you idiot.
Just because abiogenesis is a challenging and incompletely understood area, that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and say it was magic? Explain to us why saying Goddidit is suppose to be better than any science. You spewed “but there is no instance where man has visually observed or participated in the assimilation of matter resulting in a living thing†True, so do you have any instance of anyone observing a Magical Sky God ‘creating’ or ‘designing ’anything ? If you don’t, then, by your ‘logic’, creationism must also be rejected. Does that foot hurt with a bullet hole in it?
Your understanding of homoeostasis is zero and before you cut and paste from creationist crap, at least include the parentheses so we can give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t think this junk up yourself. I’m surprised you didn’t toss in the old 2nd law of thermodynamics canard to go with. You conveniently ignore the fact that life is not contained within a closed system and that homoeostasis can be either a closed or an open system. When there are sufficient changes in the environment and this can bring about a divergence in the homoeostatic mechanism. Homeostatic Mechanisms Reflect Evolution – Paul Andersen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5oe6j99Npw
Your comments on Lucy are just pure creationist ignorance, good grief man, and go read a real science book once in a while. Try 1. Carol V. Ward et al., Science, vol. 331, 2011, pp. 750-53.
One last thought, looking at all the poor design in nature speaks volumes for your designer; it’s either dumb or evil. So, identifying your designer as the all-wise and loving Christian god, for instance, must follow that, well, you figure it out.