Bill "The Science Guy" Nye Says Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

timeOday writes "BigThink has released a video missive by Bill Nye ('The Science Guy') in which he challenges the low level of acceptance of evolution, particularly in the United States. He does not mince words: 'I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, 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 people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.'"

Comments

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye is awesome.

Re:Yes!

[JMJimmy]

While he's awesome, I wonder how this made it to the front page of Failblog before it made it to Slashdot.

Re:Yes!

[ackthpt]

While he's awesome, I wonder how this made it to the front page of Failblog before it made it to Slashdot.

Because he's strongly suggesting there's a fail somewhere?

When I was a wee little tot they gave the the sugar-coated, sterilized version of biblical events and happenings.

When I grew older the tone of things became more apparent, the Bible is full of very bad things happening and wicked people doing wicked things .. which could certainly color a young child's perspective. Effectively church leaders have known for a while there's some stuff you want to keep away from kids until they're old enough to weigh the full force of the message, not get fixated on details. ("Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?")

Re:Yes!

[M. Baranczak]

Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?

They taxed the job creators.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye is awesome.

Of course he's awesome. He's awesome because God made him that way. And God clearly made him to test our faith. So he's awesomely like Satan, really.

Re:Yes!

[Wandering Voice]

"Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?"

Sodomed liked there was no Gammorah.

Re:Yes!

[ArhcAngel]

While he's awesome, I wonder how this made it to the front page of Failblog before it made it to Slashdot.

Don't worry. /. will make up for this by posting it several more times in the next few days.

Re:Yes!

[erroneus]

When I was a child, I watched a lot of PBS... NOVA and other science shows. I found an interest in dinosaurs, evolution, archaeology and lots of things like this. By the time I was 10, I thought God was a stupid idea.

Just put more quality educational programs back on the air and teach the parents it's okay to be lazy.

(Caveat: I was pre-video-game era... it doesn't quite apply the same any longer.)

Re:Yes!

[Abreu]

Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?

They taxed the job creators.

Actually, the contrary:

Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

So no, it was not the buttsecks

Re:Yes!

[jpapon]

I was similar. I wanted to be an archaeologist when I was little, I read everything about dinosaurs, evolution, Egypt, and Rome.

Then I moved to Texas, where the first day of school I met a kid who believed in God, thought evolution was a hoax, and that the Earth was 6000 years old.

I didn't know what to tell him... the only thing I could come up with was something like "...but... what about all the bones...?"

Re:Yes!

[GameboyRMH]

I wouldn't say everywhere. A lot of middle-easterners see their god as being a cross between a roid-raging bodybuilder and an incredibly insecure teenage girl.

Re:Yes!

[realityimpaired]

The sad thing is, you probably do remember your church school bible lessons, but that's still inconsistent with what's actually in the Bible and the historical context of the story.

In that time period, it was *normal* for conquering people to demonstrate their dominance over the conquered by raping them. They did this to the women *and* the men, and often castrated the men before putting them into slavery. That's just how things were back then. Similarly, it was the custom not to accept visitors into the city after dark, for defensive reasons... strangers coming into the city walls after the gates have been closed were seen as invaders, and dealt with accordingly.

In the context of the story in the Bible, God sent the angels to investigate the city. They happened upon the home of somebody who showed them hospitality, and when the citizens of the city discovered that strangers had entered the city under cover of dark and were at the home of this person, they were all dealt with according to the custom of the day.

Context is everything in this case, like every case. Unfortunately, the people who see it as a literal truth are rarely interested in the historical customs of the day. They see that God punished the Sodomites, and that's all they take from it. What they don't understand is that the sexual act itself, while involuntary, wasn't the reason for the punishment, it was the lack of hospitality and charity.

Take the book as an allegory intended to impart moral lessons and it's easier to swallow. I still have issues with the nature of God as he's described in the book (really, he's petty, vindictive, and cliquish), but the miracles and myth that permeate the pages are easier to take when you consider them to be a fiction rather than a fact, and it doesn't really detract from some of the message contained within, which, basically (and especially in the NT), is that we shouldn't be assholes to each other.

Re:Yes!

[xevioso]

Ah. Ancient puns.

Behold, a haiku:

Rabbi's sermon much
Too long, congregants sleep and
Thus he can Babylon

Re:Yes!

[_KiTA_]

I didn't know what to tell him... the only thing I could come up with was something like "...but... what about all the bones...?"

Oh oh oh, I know this one: "They were sent there by Satan to confuse and test us."

Re:Yes!

[dudpixel]

I cant speak for your experience, but I don't think (most) creation-believing people are idiots. They are just victims of very successful conartists.
That might sound like that same thing, but I put more emphasis on the skills of the conartists than on the lack of intellectual honesty of the "converts".

I myself believed in YEC (or at least biblical creation) until only recently (I'm 30). Sites like answersingenesis are instrumental in keeping the deception alive, and unlearned people soak this stuff up like a sponge. I never thought about it critically until this year, and most christians never give critical thought to it at all. This intellectual dishonesty is not only encouraged, but the typical christian lifestyle makes it difficult to ever question anything. Those who question the beliefs are seen as a threat and can risk excommunication if they go too far down that road. Others who are still in the community see it and take measures to 'prevent it happening to them or others'. And so the myth is perpetuated. It is really difficult for people who grew up in this environment to change their thinking on it. Especially when it means going back on your own word and making a liar out of yourself and your past. It is also a very difficult thing to challenge your own beliefs, right down to the very core of your worldview. It can be very destabilising and even demoralising.

So all I'm saying is, put yourself in their shoes, and realise that these people have been made to believe a lie, and it will take a lot of patience and time to turn their thinking around. And many of them will resist and fight the whole way. I suppose the same thing happened when Galileo proved the world was spherical (I know others did prior to him, but it was he who suffered publicly for it). People resist change, especially if it challenges their worldview and things they've worked for.

I am still unsure where my beliefs stand...but I approach the Bible very differently now. It is a book written by humans, with many things in it that are now known to be factually incorrect (although it can be argued that these writings served their purpose at the time, or were in keeping with popular theories of the time). As far as it is written by human authors, it is a fairly accurate account of much of Israel's history. By that I mean that it was common in those times to embellish wars or claim victory where there wasn't a victory. From that perspective I do not see it as an elaborate forgery (excuse the potential reference to Ehrman's work here) but as many different books from different authors with different writing styles, genre, and different reasons for writing.

There is debate whether Jesus was a real person, but I think the weight of the evidence lies with those who claim he was real. There is also compelling evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead, or at least it is difficult to find a compelling argument that can account for the apostles' later actions and the lives of all who followed after (there are many extra-biblical sources that tell us of this). We could believe that one or two people might have been hypnotised or crazy, but not tens or hundreds. Many who would have known the truth first-hand (whether Jesus rose from the dead) suffered immense persecution in order to promote the message. If they knew it was all a lie, why would they persevere with it? I'm not talking about people dying for their faith, I'm talking about people dying for what they KNEW first-hand.
So yeah, I still have unanswered questions, but at least the creation stuff is all pretty clearly nothing to do with science or our actual origins. For more info on where I'm at now - have a look at biologos.org.

Do I believe the bible was inspired? well, it depends on your definition of "inspired". If by "inspired" you mean that every word was written by God, then no, I don't. But if "inspired" can mean that God assisted in the process from start to finish, and allowed the ideas to be written down, or if there were incorrect ideas, allowed the

Translation for the "Normal Guy"

[sanosuke001]

Bill Nye: You are allowed to be an ignorant drain on our society but for the sake of your children's future, don't force them to ignore the things you're afraid of accepting and understanding.

Re:Translation for the "Normal Guy"

[TheGratefulNet]

Most of the sorts of people who would teach something like creationism to their kids don't force it on them

citation needed.

seriously. you really think that creationists don't FORCE FEED this bullshit down their kids' throats?

what planet are you observing from, may I ask??

Unfortunately...

[cplusplus]

...you can't reason with the irrational, so I doubt his point will sink in. If anything, it will likely cause them to react in anger ... "It's an attack on OUR BELIEFS!", and they'll dig their heels in a little deeper.

Not so sunny

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently surveyed a few of my adult friends. Somewhat surprisingly most did not realize that the stars in the sky are "suns", most attributing their sparkle to reflection from our sun.

Re:Not so sunny

[zerobeat]

Please tell me you are some kind of time lord from the past and have just entered our time-line so you could post that comment.

I think I'll spend the rest of the day prying my palm from my forehead.

Re:Not so sunny

[MightyMartian]

You hang around idiots.

Re:So which field of engineering

[Hatta]

Genetic engineering. We induce mutations via the same mechanisms they occur in in nature (e.g. mismatch repair, retroviruses, etc) and increase their frequency through selective pressure. That's evolution.

Re:So which field of engineering

[scorp1us]

Computer science with genetic algorithms.

Re:1+1=3

[WillAdams]

mu.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach Creationism.

Yes, that is exactly what he says.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Nye talks specifically about denial of belief in the theory of evolution. While he doesn't use the word creationism, his comments can only apply to that "world-view" which he believes is contrary to the evidence around us.

This headline captures exactly the message of the video, I have no idea why someone would interpret that video otherwise.

Wait for the outcry

[Anonymous Coward]

From the poor victimized Christians as they suffer the intolerant bigotry of those liberals who just won't let them do the Lord's work.

Really, how dare those liberals say they're all in favor of acceptance when they reject a religious theocracy.

I don't know if it's part of their expectations, but it seems Christians always want to make themselves out to be martyrs. They always want the rest of us to believe they're being fed to the lions. They don't grasp the concept of church and state, they think the Muslims are taking over, and they protest that their free speech is being threatened when the rest of us refuse to go along with their will. Apparently we can't say no to them without being bullies.

Re:prove your memory

[fiannaFailMan]

Prove to me that your memory is reliable, i.e. show me how I can rely on my memory other than through faith.

Do not use your memory to form your argument, or ask me to rely on my memory.

Go!

I don't have faith in my memory. I trust my memory. Unlike faith, trust us earned and subject to review. If I were to grow old and senile and found myself forgetting things, I'd be less inclined to trust my memory and more inclined to start writing more things down to get through my day.

Re:He's right

[fiannaFailMan]

Of course, most American parents don't understand evolution at all, so it will be impossible to fix this mess. If our population was better educated, we'd be ok, but both parties have done their best to destroy it while telling everyone they are fixing the problems.

Umm, Democrats are less inclined to alter science curricula in order to teach nonsense to kids. This "teach the controversy" business is the latest in a long line of right-wing attempts to undermine science education.

Re:No, he didn't.

[oh_my_080980980]

It's in the title of the video, "Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/bill-nye-science-guy-creationism-evolution_n_1835208.html

Re:So which field of engineering

[cpu6502]

Disagree Mr. AC. I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on. Even my old college professor believes in god, but that doesn't stop him from publishing peer-reviewed articles about superstrings and quarks and the inflationary period (the very basis of creation). Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs. (insert crickets chirping in the silence)

Re:Evolution just isn't that relevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Engineers need to understand the scientific method. If an engineer denies natural selection, he or she does not understand science and will not make a good engineer.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf

[Microlith]

Yes! Stand up for ignorance!

I will teach my kids whatever I want to teach them.

Yes, teach them silly things that contradict reality and to be willfully ignorant.

I am sick of tyrants bossing me around as if I was one of my ancestors.

He's no tyrant. However, there are more than a few wannabe tyrants among the US Christian community who feel they are charged by God to be a tyrant over others. And there are many, particularly those that push Intelligent Design, that don't want people to be capable of arguing in their own defense or contradicting the weak arguments of those they support.

Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor.

No, but if you're willing to reject evolution in favor of irrational beliefs then your ability as a scientist cannot help but be compromised.

Re:So which field of engineering

[Elric of Melnibone]

Genetic engineering. We induce mutations via the same mechanisms they occur in in nature (e.g. mismatch repair, retroviruses, etc) and increase their frequency through selective pressure. That's evolution.

Actually, that is intelligent design. No doubt your mutations tell themselves you don't exist and they created themselves by evolution.

Re:So which field of engineering

[SJHillman]

Belief in God and belief in evolution need not be separate things. You can completely believe in God while still believing in evolution. What the AC was pointing out is that most Creationists that completely deny evolution refuse to believe the evidence right in front of them. He said nothing about whether or not God exists, but nice try.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf

[Vokkyt]

Based on the transcript, I don't think that's what Bill Nye is saying here. From the video transcript:

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place.

He's not really talking about spiritualism, religion, or any other belief systems; he's talking about a small subset of people bent on eschewing very carefully collected, studied, and reviewed data because they perceive it as an attack on their personal belief system. The Science guy is concerned that bad and irrational decisions are being made under the guise of "its my religion". His purpose is not to decry religion, but to defend science, evolution specifically as it is the target of attacks. I think the thought process is less "don't let religion get into science" and more "think rationally about scientific matters." His plea for "...scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future." and "...people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems" is less about evolution versus religion and more about ensuring that future generations are trained to think logically; to think things through instead of standing on ceremony, that is, actually try to find the best solution, not just one that someone wants.

Does this mean he's against creationism in the classroom? Probably, because it's inconsistent with pretty much every other scientific model out there. But I don't think he's intending to harp on the idea of there being a creator; just people who want to push their agenda at the expense of education

Re:So which field of engineering

[ackthpt]

Also, structural engineering, materials engineering, when you factor in biomimetics.

Also, software development, with each new language we mus master we continue to evolve into more hideous creatures with each passing day.

Re:So which field of engineering

[Ambassador Kosh]

I am working on a degree in Chemical and Biological engineering and we definitely use evolution. There are even computer models now based on adaptation speeds for things like resistance to drugs etc.

Evolution is critically important to modern biotech work.

Re:So which field of engineering

[Grishnakh]

Mr. AC never said anything about a generalized belief in a creator, he was addressing Creationism, which is where fundamentalist religious belief causes people to refuse to belief in actual physical evidence that can be observed and verified, because they prefer to believe origin fairy tales that have no basis in reality and no evidence to support them, and tons of evidence that disproves them. Simply believing in a "creator" doesn't prevent you from accepting evolutionary theory; lots of religious people, including Christians (in fact, most of them if you consider them all instead of focusing only on Americans) have no problem with the theory of evolution, and regard the biblical creation tale to be mere metaphor, not literal truth.

In short, don't get your panties in a bunch.

Re:So which field of engineering

[ShieldW0lf]

So, this bacteria is sitting in this petri dish that's been sitting on a lab bench evolving increased toxin resistance for many generations, and he says to another bacteria "You know, someone created all this. His name is Bill Nye, and he hates the weaklings among us who can't tolerate the presence of XYZ. That's why he created all this, so he could weed out the weak, and someday, he'll pluck us from this place and bring us to Heaven, to serve his purpose."

So, they fired him from his engineering job because he was clearly crazy.

Re:So which field of engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

GP's AC here.

Perhaps you could enlighten us how our beliefs make us suck at our jobs.

I'd love to, but you've already stated that you will ignore any and all evidence that goes against your presuppositions, while sticking your fingers in your ears (in this case to listen to crickets chirping apparently) to avoid anything that counters your beliefs. Incidentally, that, exactly, is why you're incompetent, and should never be allowed to work on something people's lives depend on. Frankly, if all you're working on is missile launchers, I don't care if your idiocy screws things up so that they short out and do nothing when someone tries to use them, but if you ever start trying to build skyscrapers or bridges, someone's probably going to die because you refused to accept some point of reality that had been abundantly proven, yet went against your 2000+ year old stone age dogma. If you won't look rationally at one piece of evidence, then the probability is very strong that as time goes on, to support your superstitions you'll start ignoring others, until it becomes a deeply ingrained habit, and people end up dead because of it.

Re:Creationists are not exactly stupid

[Nadaka]

No, but the rejection of critical thinking and rationality necessary to defend the belief in the biblical creation story in the face of contrary evidence is something that stunts the mental development of children in all other areas of science and understanding. The belief in biblical creation is itself not the problem, but rather one of the most common causes of the problem. It would also be bad if they were taught to reject physics in defense of a geocentric flat earth story.

Re:Prove Otherwise Please

[MightyMartian]

i would put that the first couple picoseconds of Time are beyond what Science can state as Truth

1. Science does not deal in Truth. It deals in the best explanation that fits the evidence.
2. That we may not be able to probe further back that the Planck time right now does not mean we will never be able to. Burying your god in the gaps of our knowledge invites your god to get smaller as the gaps are filled.

and also show me an entire line of Fossils that show how a Proto-Quadraped became say a Horse (with complete skeletons at each stage).

Which is as absurd a demand as saying "Show me every generation of the spoken language between Proto-Germanic and Elizabethan English with complete syntax and vocabularies."

One does not have to have a complete data set to be able to make inferences based upon the data we do have, and thus we can say with a high degree of confidence that "Elizabethan English is descended from Proto-Germanic" and "all extant life evolved from a common ancestor", when in both cases we can only make indirect inferences about what Proto-Germanic and the earliest common ancestor of life were like.

Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot.

[jedidiah]

Creationism is not the problem. It is merely the outward manifestation of it. The problem is mindless evangelicals that expect blind devotion and for you to check your brain at the door. This creationism nonsense is just the most visible part of their worldview. These people are extremists even by the standards of other religious people.

They're like the Amish except with no balls. They make a lot of separatist noises and then just whine and pretend they are somehow victimized by society.

It's also useful to note that this lot were the only people to defend those recent "legitimate rape" remarks.

Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.

Re:So which field of engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be confused that there's a difference.

Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot.

[Ziggitz]

Yep, the guy with multiple Ph.D's disagrees with the your particular brand of invisible sky daddy, must be a dumbass.

Questions

[TiggertheMad]

Mommy, what did they do in Sodom that was sinful?

If the practiced Sodomy in Sodom, did they practice Gomorrahy in Gomorrah?

Re:Questions

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If the practiced Sodomy in Sodom, did they practice Gomorrahy in Gomorrah?

I'm not sure what they did there, but I've heard that God punished the mankind with gomorrhea for that, for all of us to remember.

Re:Questions

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Sounds like an asshole to me.

Well, people all around the world create their gods in their own image. Naturally, some of them end up with an asshole god.

Re:So which field of engineering

[Nadaka]

I grew up in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. We were all about killing people. We prayed for Armageddon, and members of my fathers church sought out positions within the USAF Strategic Air Command, so they would have the opportunity to be involved in the extermination of mankind to fulfill gods will. Fortunately I have come to reject the faith of my father and no longer bow before such evil.

Re:prove your memory

[Nadaka]

And faith that remains in contradiction to evidence is mental illness.

Re:Personally, I don't see a conflict

[godless dave]

Wouldn't it make more sense to believe that Genesis was written by people who had no more idea about how the earth, sun, moon, and stars formed than anyone else who was alive at the time? Why perpetuate the idea that some guy got knowledge directly from God and then wrote it down?

Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot.

[KhabaLox]

Creationism is just a symptom of a much more fundemental problem.

I see what you did there.

Re:"Creationism" is overbroad here.

[IICV]

Just FYI, although theologically guided evolution is more accurate than creationism, it's still a couple steps short of the actual theory of evolution we have today.

The modern theory of evolution simply has no place for God to stick his fingers in. There's no mechanism in it by which divine intervention could happen, and in all the data we have gathered (and there's a lot of data) there are absolutely no divine fingerprints.

In order to argue that the modern theory of evolution is "in no way incompatible with the belief that God ... Has guided the process", you must use the same dodges and evasions that young earth creationists do - "oh, God just made it look natural, secretly he's doing all the heavy lifting", "God's just sneaky, putting in all that fossil DNA to make it look like this happened naturally".

Basically, theological evolution is not compatible with the modern theory of evolution, except in the playground "You can't prove he didn't!" way, and arguing that it is is wrong and misleading.

Re:I disagree; Bill is an idiot.

[cmdr_klarg]

Creationists: Putting the Fun, Duh, and Mental in Fundamentalism!

Epic biblical mistranslation: You didn't build it

[goombah99]

After the king james version some one translated "Bring them out so we may know them" to "have sex with them". Yikes. The ancient hebrew/aramic word for know is Yeda and it means to know well. Of the 47 places yeda is used in no place does it strictly mean sex. In fact it is written that David knew god. Was david but fucking god, or did he just, well, know him.

In fact the cannanites were in a time of sporaic war with their rivals, which is why they had a gate keeper named Lot. Now Lot was a sneaky guy who didn't even live with his own people. When he let in two demanding late night strangers and hid them in his home, the people had every reason to be alarmed. Perhaps they meant harm to the village. Asking to meet them and learn their bussiness under such cshady circumstances seeme reasonable. And indeed they did come planning to destroy the place and ulimately did.

The word "them" in bring them out, is gender neutral. The towns people did not know if the strangers were all men, angels, or a family. The word for the towns people is mixed gender "all the people", and so the idea they would be raping anyone in front of their wives and kids seems absurd. Finally, when offered the claimed virgin (but married) daughters of lot, the less than horny towns people turned them down, not being interested in sex but safety.

Finally one can note there were not witnesses other than lot and his wife (and retinue) that escaped so we only have lots story, and that story seems to be plagerized form the book of judges where the same thing happens including offering virgin daughters to protect angels. If this were on CSI-Gomorrah today we would find out that actually lot got paid off to open the town gates to an invading army that razed the place and Lots wife was going to spill the beans so he killed her and told everyone she turned into a pillar of stone. Then he just recycled the story from Book of Judges when asked what happened.

Anyhow. No butsects in soddom. Eziekiel tells us exactly why got sent the destroying angels: the prideful 1%s didn't realize they didn't build their own wealth, society had, and they were not giving back.

Um...

[zooblethorpe]

Sounds like an asshole to me.

Well, people all around the world create their gods in their own image. Naturally, some of them end up with an asshole god.

So are we still talking about sodomy? I'm so confused...

:-P

Re:"Creationism" is overbroad here.

[Pfhorrest]

The evidence that mutations are "random" (at least in the sense of "not deliberate") is that there are so many dead ends in the evolutionary tree. Most species which have ever lived are now extinct with no descendants. So either God is grossly incompetent and makes a lot of mistakes (which, being mistakes and thus not deliberate, are just as "random" as science holds mutations to be), or he's not involved at all. Cause if he was involved and was as omniscient as he's supposed to be, primordial microbes would have evolved directly into the optimal spread of species with no "shit no that's not right, scratch that and try again" along the way. (And that's not even getting into whether the present spread of species extant in the world today is anything close to "optimal" by any definition. And never mind whether the "design" of any single species is "optimal" in any sense either).

The tree of life we see around us and in the fossil record looks like a huge (and ongoing) process of trial and error, with nature throwing random shit at the wall and seeing what sticks (most of it doesn't for long), NOT an intelligent, deliberate process of some omniscient designer rolling out new features in his target product line by stages.