In a recent Big Think video titled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children” the beloved “Science Guy” strictly denounces creationism and its dangers to children and society as a whole. Nye states:
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.
In Nick Clairmont’s article, he compares the more hostile reactions to this video to another “instance in which Nye was booed and walked out on by the audience at a lecture in Waco, Texas for stating (I kid you not) that the moon reflects the light of the sun and produces no light of its own.”
It is unfair, however, to compare creationists to those who believe that the moon produces its own light without defining which type of creationist Nye is addressing. A quick Google search for “creationism” reveals a myriad of definitions. Which kind is Nye talking about?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: “At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will…Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all Creationists in this sense.”
The Encyclopedia also offers, “a narrower sense of Creationism” which it sites as “the sense that one usually finds in popular writings (especially in America today).”
Here, Creationism means the taking of the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Genesis, as literally true guides to the history of the universe and to the history of life, including us humans, down here on earth (Numbers 1992).
“Creationists,” in this sense, “are strongly opposed to to a world brought on by evolution, particularly to a world as described by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species.”
As he makes no mention of God in this video, it seems that Nye is speaking of creationism in the second sense, as a rejection of evolution. I would feel personally offended by the beloved “Science Guy” of my childhood if he were telling me that my belief in a Creator God (a belief that also allows for him to have chosen evolution as a means by which to create) was “not appropriate for children.” As it stands, however, I think Nye brings up a good point.
Clairmont continues:
As Nye points out, evolution is fundamental to our understanding of the known universe. So sure, everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. However, if you reject science, you won’t succeed, and we as a society won’t succeed to the fullest extent.
If half of American society champions science as a god and the other half rejects scientific facts outright, we will be lost.
August 29th, 2012 | 11:46 am
I haven’t paid much attention to this, but I would guess that Nye is objecting to any account of our origins that rejects the relevant well established scientific theories.
That there are people who are surprised and offended to hear what’s been known about the moon since Parmenides at least is truly frightening.
August 29th, 2012 | 11:46 am
Any evolutionist I’ve ever spoken to means by “Creationist” someone who rejects evolution. A religious believer who believes that God used evolution (like the pope) would be a ‘theistic evolutionist’.
August 29th, 2012 | 11:52 am
Yeah, I loved Bill Nye too. There is perhaps some small amount of blame which he bears for my current career choice. I certainly hope he mean the narrower form, and I suspect he did.
Does it follow, I wonder, that if a scientific view is wrong then teaching it to children ought to be banned by law? Maybe in the case of things which belief in is seriously harmful to the common good. I doubt, in the case of evolution, if the harm of believing in strict Creationism merits the intervention of government for the sake of, say, a more productive economy. Belief in black magin as a replacement for medicine might count though.
August 29th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
It is indisputably clear that he is talking about denial of evolution. Creationism in the sense that he uses it would imply some kind of literal belief in the creation story in Genesis or some kind of understanding of that story that, while not entirely literal, nevertheless would deny the theory of evolution.
I would say that perhaps for small children, the creation story in Genesis is an acceptable “first approximation” of the religious belief that God is the Creator. You don’t have to teach a 2-year-old the theory of evolution. Creation stories should be “age appropriate.” But for a school-age child, it is inappropriate to deny evolution.
August 29th, 2012 | 12:07 pm
Nye isn’t championing scicene as a god. He is attacking the widespread acceptance of young earth creaitonisn and a corresponding rejection of evolution.
I’m very gald to see this post.
August 29th, 2012 | 12:36 pm
Please see Dr Wile’s comments below. He has written a great article in response:
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8530#more-8530
Dr Wile is a scientist and a Christian
August 29th, 2012 | 12:48 pm
The problem, as was foreseen by Darwin himself, who agonized for years over publishing his theory, is that Darwinian evolution is not your typical scientific proposal. Your typical scientific proposal, it should hardly need reminding, is not routinely used by so-called Secularists to “prove” that religion is discredited, that normative morality is no more than the law of the jungle, or that God does not exist, not now, not ever (that list could be augmented considerably). Nor does it much seem to matter to excitable Secularists that none of those topics was actually addressed by Charles Darwin or in any subsequent textbook presentations of evolution
There very likely were fewer of them in the 1850s—so Darwin’s anxiety was prescient—but the “cultured despisers” of religion are nowadays anything but reticent on the subject of what they imagine Neo-Darwinism has to say about several subjects of the utmost importance to any society. Furthermore, the source of the controversy, insofar as it may be located within what the theory itself teaches, is hardly difficult to point to, what might be called the “paradigm of randomness” that neo-darwinist evolutionary theory teaches, endorses, and recommends (let’s be candid) as a matter of indisputable fact.
Again, it is NOT necessary that a theory about biological speciation be recruited to attacking a lot that a good many people besides so-called Creationists (in the second sense above) regard as matters of belief or opinion. No, of course, it’s not deductively necessary. But, inductively, simply as a matter of what (a) might have been predicted and (b) what actually has happened, Bill Nye is, for my money, either a certifiable imbecile for casually ignoring the reality of the controversy, as if only the science were at issue and responsible parents have no business taking anything else into account in deciding what THEIR children are to watch on television; either that, I say, or he is a dissembling partisan in the culture wars; and it doesn’t much matter how many engineers Bill Nye says America needs or what he, personally, feels impedes or abets their supply. What a colossally tendentious, farfetched, and frankly stupid correlation to make, as if discouraging tutelage, approving tutelage, mind you, in Neo-Darwinism’s bedrock foundation of sheer pointlessness, which is what you will find in any TV show on evolution, as if, I repeat, parents acting on a legitimate concern as regards their OWN children’s moral formation can have any appreciable effect on how many, say, civil engineers there are or may be in future.
So, to all the other meddling busybodies out there, there is time enough for children to learn about current evolutionary theory and still keep America safe. Encouraging the promulgation of one point of view, in what Nye surely cannot help knowing is a bitter and ongoing controversy, is not something which he is remotely qualified to do. Let him content himself with setting in motion Lionel trains with a D-cell and a knife-blade switch. He’s good at using a rotten egg to make a stink. He should stop there.
August 29th, 2012 | 12:59 pm
I love Bill Nye. But his video makes some important mistakes, as I argued recently on my blog I Love You but You’re Going to Hell (http://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2012/08/28/bill-nye-doesnt-get-creationism/). I’m no creationist, young-earth or otherwise. I’m just a mild-mannered historian. But Nye’s assumption that creationism will wither away flies in the face of twentieth-century history. Also, creationism is not at all unique to the United States. As Ron Numbers described in The Creationists (1993, rev. ed. 2006), religiously inspired creationism is a world-wide phenomenon, particularly strong in diverse places such as Australia and Turkey. Love the man, hate the error.
August 29th, 2012 | 1:16 pm
I don’t think anyone wants to make it illegal for parents to teach their children to be creationists (however understood). I don’t think any idea is so dangerous that teaching it should be illegal. But there are plenty of things we should try to convince people not to teach.
Regarding teaching evolution (as, to be clear, a biological theory), that should not in any way be held hostage to anyone’s “culture wars”. There are legitimate controversies about how to respond, philosophically or theologically, to the findings of evolutionary biology. But the theory itself should be taught as what it is–the best account we have of our biological origins.
August 29th, 2012 | 1:21 pm
As a retired biochemist who worked in research for forty years, I am in total agreement with Bill Nye’s statements. There is no way to be a productive scientist without not only accepting evolution but thoroughly understanding it. Beyond that, the world is complex and the challenges that we face require a fundamental understanding of how we got here and where we are going. America will not compete in a global economy if our children do not understand how the Earth and its inhabitants has changed over billions of years.
August 29th, 2012 | 1:35 pm
Joe: Your typical scientific proposal, it should hardly need reminding, is not routinely used by so-called Secularists to “prove” that religion is discredited, that normative morality is no more than the law of the jungle,
Who says that? It certainly isn’t common among evolutionists, the way believing that morality is whatever God decrees it is among creationists.
August 29th, 2012 | 1:51 pm
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
“Consistency” (5 December 1887). This quote is engraved on Twain’s bust in the National Hall of Fame.
The Arrogant Fool is the one who thinks Mark Twain was speaking of someone else
August 29th, 2012 | 2:20 pm
Like so many professional entertainers, Bill Nye has parlayed his celebrity status into a platform to expound his opinions based on non-proven theories and unsound science.
Bill attempts to draw credibility from the fact that Carl Sagan was one of his professors while in college. So what. I would be more impressed if Bill had earned at least a masters or Phd from an online university. And honorary doctorate degrees are handed out (often times) as a “thank you” for a donation or as a publicity campaign. Yes, Bill may be a brilliant mechanic engineer, but that and a kids show does not make him an expert policy contributor on what the education system should or should allow and not allow to be taught.
Evolution is a theory that has not been proven by any observational science whatsoever. Saying that complex life formed as a result of random chance processes and massive eons of time is the same as saying that given enough time and chance that the pile of metal, plastic, rubber (and sure, throw in a fully operating Ipad) will assemble itself into a brand new car.
August 29th, 2012 | 2:28 pm
Encouraging the promulgation of one point of view, in what Nye surely cannot help knowing is a bitter and ongoing controversy, is not something which he is remotely qualified to do.
Joe Sansonese,
I am not sure I understand your full argument, but in any case, it seems to me there are many things that Americans have—after a period of controversy and disagreement—made up their minds that there is one and only one correct point of view on. I think perhaps the last thing to move from controversy to consensus was anti-black racism. There was a time when some Americans argued for segregation, inti-miscegenation, etc., and there were two points of view. Now, although racism persists to some degree, there really aren’t two acceptable points of view.
It seems to me that there aren’t two points of view when it comes to evolution, although anti-evolution sentiments are probably as common as racists ones.
George Weigel says in his On the Square piece today:
Weigel has a much different viewpoint and “agenda” than I do, but I think he is correct that some things just are . . . and I would say one of those is evolution. Another one is the intolerable injustice of racism.
What I think bothers many people who talk about “relativism” is not really relativism. It is a disagreement over what things are, and those who speak of relativism aren’t concerned that there will be consensus on the proposition that “what’s right for me isn’t necessarily right for you (and vice versa), and what’s wrong for some people may be right for others.” What they are concerned about is that their view of what is will be rejected for another view of what is. It’s not moral relativism they are worried about. They’re worried about losing the debate about what is.
And as for evolution, there is a firm consensus (including within the judiciary) that evolution is scientific fact and creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific facts, but religious propositions.
August 29th, 2012 | 2:55 pm
I am not disputing that evolution is “scientific fact,” but evolution does not HAVE to mean Neo-Darwinism. Aristotle thought creatures evolved, albeit teleologically. I myself reserve judgment on the extent to which blind chance plays a role in evolution.
What I am disputing, and I thought I made that clear, is that Mr. Nye could have been ignorant of the controversy over the place of chance in Neo-Darwinian evolution, which is indisputably a central one and blithely assume, as he seems to in the video, that teaching said theory is an uncomplicated affair from a parents point of view. If the theory is to be used as it has been to attack religion, God, and morality as chimeras of the imagination, then perhaps a parent SHOULD err on the side of caution and delay exposing children to the thing itself until they, the children, are in a position to assess EVERYTHING about the theory and that specifically includes the controversies. Nye’s complaint about parents exercising such discretion to me on the grounds that it will impact the number of scientists and engineers is sophomoric and superficial. He surely knows that evolutionary theory has had major sociocultural ramifications. Why pretend that it is no more controversial than than that of the silicon chip’s use in a computer?
August 29th, 2012 | 2:59 pm
There are modern Americans who believe that Columbus’ big contribution was to prove the world round. There are those who believe that summer is hotter because the sun is closer to the earth then. That’s just two of the major fallacies in general circulation among the American populace including among the well educated. The former fades for those who have focused on history. The later fades for those who focused on science. My point is that all of us have unreasonable gaps in our eduction. Neither of these two is controversial because neither is used to attack someone else’s belief system. I believe “science” will have better luck with evolution when it is used less as a stick to beat others and more as an explanation.
That said, I note the former of my two examples was invented to discredit the Catholics in Spain asked to judge Columbus’ proposal. In fact, the committee reported that Columbus’ estimate of the earth’s circumference was far too small which it was. Even though Columbus’ mistake is embedded in common English — Indian can refer to pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere as well as those from Hindustan — the “The Earth, she is round!” remains in popular belief. Though it has become divorced from any putdown of the Catholic Church.
August 29th, 2012 | 3:44 pm
“Nye was booed and walked out on by the audience at a lecture in Waco, Texas for stating (I kid you not) that the moon reflects the light of the sun and produces no light of its own.”
I found the outrage expressed here truly odd: everyone knows that green cheese doesn’t produce light.
August 29th, 2012 | 3:54 pm
But the theory itself should be taught as what it is–the best account we have of our biological origins.
Which is irrelevant to Nye’s problems for accepting creationism. We don’t have a lack of scientists because of creationism. We actually have a lot, but the reasons why people don’t like or do science is that it often requires a tremendous amount of higher math, and revolves around boring procedures repeated and constantly checked for error. It’s something only a certain type of person likes, and that doesn’t change all that much. People can learn to appreciate science some, but to be scientists is a matter of personality.
Also, believing in a certain theory of origins really doesn’t have that much impact on the kind of questions taxpayers and voters must face. It’s more about the moral (should we allow IVF?) or financial (can our town afford to subsidize pure research?) than that. An understanding of the science in particular helps, but origins specifically doesn’t. Even creationists talk about microevolution and accept that life changes over time-they just don’t think it explains origins.
If he’d be honest, he’d say that he wants this to create people who are sympathetic to scientists and step in line when they pronounce on matters of policy. He and other people like him want science to have priority in culture, and while not be a ruling class be followed and funded and constantly attracting the best and brightest. Problem is that we’ve already made some heroic efforts to do so, and he’s mistaking creationism for the natural limits of society in embracing science as a culture.
August 29th, 2012 | 4:09 pm
There is a common presupposition among many if not most ‘secularists’ and among many believers that faith and reason, religion and science are at odds with each other if not diametrically opposed. Yet not all of us ‘believe’ this presupposition-certainly the Catholic tradition does not.
The roots of this go deep-back into Nominalism which was a common philosophy at the time science was really beginning to flower.
Creation and evolution do not automatically oppose each other nor cancel out each other. However, ‘creationism’ as evolutionism/scientism do indeed.
Humankind thirsts to know ‘How everything is the way it is’-this is the perview of the various sciences [evolution being one] “Why everything is’ or more simply ‘why is there something rather than nothing’ is the realm of faith/religion.
Be careful of prejudging ‘the ways we know’ [for example: science gives us objective reality vs. theology which gives us at best 'subjective' truth]. The difference is not in the quality of the knowledge as much as it is in the questions they seek to answer.
August 29th, 2012 | 4:33 pm
Science, even evolutionary science, is not anti-religion. If it were, how could so many religious people be scientists? There is a major conflict, however, between biblical literalists and evolutionary science. A similar situation occurs in Islam. This is not a scientific dispute, where both sides present scientific data, and the conclusion of the conflict is decided by the weight of the evidence.
When creationists use scientific arguments to suggest that evolution is false, or that the universe is thousands rather than billions of years old, they use (and reuse) ideas that have been shown to be wrong, sometimes dozens or even hundreds of years ago. The scientific arguments they employ are invariably shown to be incorrect. This has no effect on their convictions, of course, because these convictions do no arise from science, but from their strongly held religious views.
They are free to hold and to teach these views in this country because of the protections guaranteed under our constitition. The same constitution does not allow the government to take sides in religious disputes, which means that public schools cannot support religious views such as creationism.
Bill Nye is correct to say that teaching creationist views to to children is harmful to our country. By depriving some kids of a good scientific education, we are diminishing the pool from which our next generation of scientists come, and these scientists will be necessary to carry on our increasingly technical society.
August 29th, 2012 | 5:02 pm
Joe Sansonese,
Are you saying that scientific facts are dangerous and should not be carelessly unleashed on the world?
As I said above, no parent (or school) need try to burden small children with post-graduate-level science. It may even be appropriate for the first answer to a child’s question about where the world came from to be Bible stories. But I don’t think Nye is talking about teaching children complicated science as much as he is opposing people telling children evolution is not true.
August 29th, 2012 | 5:31 pm
Joe Sansonese – It sounds like you’re saying that, if evolution were true, it would have consequences you didn’t like… and therefore evolution isn’t true?
Just because the controversy is ‘bitter and ongoing’, it is NOT necessary that the actual facts of the matter are in doubt.
August 29th, 2012 | 5:35 pm
DSSDVS – “Saying that complex life formed as a result of random chance processes”
Thankfully, that’s not evolution, so you can relax.
August 29th, 2012 | 5:49 pm
“Bill Nye is correct to say that teaching creationist views to children is harmful to our country.”
Bill Nye is full of it. That is a tendentious assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up, the sort of supposition-riddled hot air that, one imagine, a true scientist, as opposed to a TV personality, would avoid making else he may expose himself to justifiable ridicule.
The problem is not the science. the problem is that the theory of evolution comes equipped with a lot of baggage, metaphysical baggage, about a hell of a lot of things besides the origin of species. Metaphysics is of course not the ostensible subject of neo-darwinian evolution. But it’s assertion plain and unequivocal assertion that the present distribution of species as well as their interrelatedness is entirely dependent on blind chance. That claim of evolutionary theory is nowhere demonstrated in any presentation of the theory that I know of. It is instead a PRESUMPTION OF the theory, and natural selection makes little sense on its own terms without that presumption. In and of itself, I would maintain, but this is at lest arguable, the presumption of randomness necessarily entails a particular metaphysics, a pernicious metaphysics of a distinctly antinomian variety. The proof is that the theory is incessantly used in just that way: to attack normative religions and especially anyway foolish enough, within the metaphysics, to believe in God.
If you’re a responsible parent are you simply expected to ignore the clear implications of the theory of Neo-Darwinism because Bill Nye the Science Guy unburdens himself in public of some malarkey about the how many engineering students we have. I would maintain that the existence of Creationist fundamentalists, with whom I do NOT agree, which is of no importance, is somewhere south of the price of Belgian endives for all the explanatory power it brings to the issue of why are there not enough American-bred engineers. I’m sorry, but that is junk science, as far as I can tell.
Perhaps, instead, until children reach the age, which really is not very young at all, at which someone may assess BOTH the theory and its metaphysics, because BOTH are important and not for reasons of science either, no sir. As a matter of fact, I think it safe to claim, without worrying about serious contradiction, that it’s the metaphysics associated with Neo-Darwinism that is far and away the more important topic in the life of the average American. I myself am the product of a Jesuit education, and at least back in my day, the Jebbies had a terrible track record as concerns biology education: it wasn’t a required course (though health was). I did not encounter the theory in a meaningful way until I was at university, when I was in a position to evaluate both the theory and its implications. I cannot for the life of me see how I was at all hindered in my education as a physicist by my relatively late exposure to Neo-Darwinism. I’m not recommending that, you understand, but I’m pretty sure we would have as many or as few engineers as we currently enjoy were children taught the subject a whole lot later than Nye seems to want. And if that is too long for Bill Nye, then Bill Nye may go knit.
August 29th, 2012 | 5:55 pm
Tom,
This is a serious question from someone who believes in evolution. Aren’t there branches of science that do not depend in any way with a thorough knowledge of evolution? You seem to claim that there are not. I think that there are so I’m not sure that I’m buying what you are selling.
August 29th, 2012 | 6:18 pm
DSSDVS: Evolution is a theory that has not been proven by any observational science whatsoever.
And if you knew how science works, you’d know that scientific theories are never “proven” – they are only supported by the evidence, the way evidence very strongly supports the theory of evolution.
DSSDVS: Saying that complex life formed as a result of random chance processes
Natural selection is not “random chance”.
DSSDVS: and massive eons of time is the same as saying that given enough time and chance that the pile of metal, plastic, rubber (and sure, throw in a fully operating Ipad) will assemble itself into a brand new car.
I didn’t know that metal, plastic and rubber are subject to natural selection. And that their chances of reproduction increase whenever mutations lead to them being able to survive better.
August 29th, 2012 | 6:27 pm
“Are you saying that scientific facts are dangerous and should not be carelessly unleashed on the world?”
Of course not, but then, the theory of evolution that Nye endorses so blasély is not just any old scientific theory, is it? If it were, the entire problem would go away, wouldn’t it? The problem lies irremovably within the theory itself. One of its crucial assumptions, without which the theory NYE IS TALKING ABOUT is simply NOT THE THEORY HE’S TALKING ABOUT—if that makes any sense—is exceptionally debatable. In my opinion it has virtually been designed to BE debatable as Darwin uneasily understood, which, for the the fifth time, is its tendency, almost by default, to encourage Antinomianism. Of course children do not have to know thing one about metaphysics or Antinomianism or teleology for parents to be concerned. How, pray, as a matter of simple scientific integrity, is the uncompromising randomness as regards the origins of human life, which the theory both deploys and exploits, to be left out of any presentation, no matter how elementary, without fatally compromising that presentation? It would be dishonest. It cannot be omitted and still be the theory of evolution. What? Are we to deliberately avoid mentioning to the little ones the key ingredient, the one that most recommends the theory to scientists, I’d argue, and just break it to the dears later?
“But I don’t think Nye is talking about teaching children complicated science as much as he is opposing people telling children evolution is not true.”
I would maintain, as above, that what is “true” or “not true” about neo-darwinian evolution is not so simple a matter as you seem to be suggesting it is. Regardless of whether one is a Creationist in the fundamentalist sense, I do not see how, given its undeniable presupposition of pointlessness in human speciation, one can with good conscience endorse the theory as true simpliciter. The randomness inherent in the words “natural selection” is not some dispensable option of the theory, like a GPS system is in a car. No. It is instead fundamental. Moreover, I dispute the notion that teaching children that there is little more behind the specifics of their biology than a series of fortuitous accidents that could just as well have ended otherwise or even not at all, would be a matter of teaching them “complicated science” such as, say, the population statistics of an ecosystem. On the contrary, having been a teacher myself for nearly 30 years, I suspect it would be relatively easy to illustrate to them that there is no more reason for them being in class than there is reason for any accident. Believe me, they know ALL ABOUT accidents.
August 29th, 2012 | 7:22 pm
“What I am disputing, and I thought I made that clear, is that Mr. Nye could have been ignorant of the controversy over the place of chance in Neo-Darwinian evolution, which is indisputably a central one and blithely assume, as he seems to in the video, that teaching said theory is an uncomplicated affair from a parents point of view.”
He is not ignorant of this issue. What he is saying is that evolution deniers are a serious are part of the problem.
Youu may disagree with him on the science, which is your right, but he has correctly identified the problem. And, it’s a serious one. Mark Knoll explained why many years ago.
Here’s one example of evolution denialism:
“Evolution is a theory that has not been proven by any observational science whatsoever.”
Bearing false witness, this is.
August 29th, 2012 | 9:30 pm
“He is not ignorant of this issue. What he is saying is that evolution deniers are a serious are part of the problem.”
He doesn’t even mention it. So how are we to assess his ignorance or lack of it. Besides, as I said repeatedly, I too am assured that he knows exactly what the controversy is. He simply doesn’t care about it, which I find appalling.
I do not disagree with him on the science, at least to the extent that the theory concludes that present species all descend from a common ancestor by modification and adaptation. I agree with that 100%, so please do not saddle me with the tiresome, not to mention vaguely patronizing, sentiment that I am of course free to disagree with him. I need you to tell me that?
Also, news flash, I care nothing about what Mark Knoll said “years ago.” The issue for me is Bill Nye’s obvious petulance over what must seem to him to be nothing more than recalcitrant parents. The totalitarian mind is ALWAYS impatient with foot-draggers. Well, his far-fetched warning is little more than foot-stamping, in my opinion, he’s in such a pout. I know. He really does remind me of Jon Lovitt impersonating Tommy Flanagan on Saturday Night Live:
“Darn those Creationist parents! Why can’t they get with the program? Who are THEY to resist embracing a theory that teaches bare Nihilism as fact to children? What a bunch of knuckle-draggers. I know! I’ll scare ‘em. Yeah. That’s the ticket. If you people don’t let your children know as early as possible THAT THEY ARE COMPLETE ACCIDENTS, then . . . then . . . then the sky will fall! . . . No, that’s not it. . . . They’ll never believe that. . . .Hmmm . . . I’ve got it! Then there won’t be enough engineers, and we’re all gonna die! Yeah. We’re all gonna die. That’s the ticket!”
It’s difficult to refrain from flat out laughing, Nye is so ridiculous.
August 29th, 2012 | 9:57 pm
“…Nye was booed and walked out on by the audience at a lecture in Waco, Texas for stating (I kid you not) that the moon reflects the light of the sun and produces no light of its own.”
Well, good source. I’m sure “Think Atheist” did not distort the story in anyway. I haver never seen or heard any of the popular creationist groups ever make such a claim.
On the other hand they really don’t take Genesis 1 literally. They pick and choose.
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/
And while you were defining “Creationism,” no one thought to define “evolution.” Are its defenders defending Scientism?
August 30th, 2012 | 9:27 am
Joe Sansonese,
I am still not sure I am getting your point. Are you saying that neo-Darwinism, or “the new synthesis,” or whatever one wants to call it, cannot be accepted without accepting that life is a meaningless accident and the existence of human beings (or any other species) is the result of a pure randomness (in terms of mutations, if not natural selection), and consequently any ideas about God as Creator of humankind as something special cannot be reconciled with neo-Darwinism? If so, I think that there are countless religious people who disagree with you.
In any case, it still seems to me that you are saying “Darwin’s dangerous idea” should be made available on a limited basis and only to those who can deal with it.
August 30th, 2012 | 9:45 am
Joe Sansonese –
Bull.
No, seriously, that’s flat wrong.
Evolution has a chance component, sure. (Or, to be more specific, no one’s found any solid evidence in favor of the chance elements like mutation or genetic drift being directed by anything in particular.)
But evolution involves very decidedly non-random elements like natural selection. It is much more than “blind chance”, and those who dismiss it as such are at least as wrong as Nye is being accused of here.
Sansonese goes even further here, though. How can the “interrelatedness” of species be a matter of ‘chance’? Either mammals came from therapsids or they didn’t. There can be uncertainty about particular lines of descent, but that’s not the same as their relatedness being a crapshoot.
August 30th, 2012 | 9:54 am
Joe Sansonese –
It’s honestly not clear to me that you actually understand the role that chance plays in the theory of evolution. So I’m really not clear what exactly you’re objecting to.
Head to this page and search for the word ‘histogram’. There you can see the distribution of the degree of difference between human and mouse genes for 2,019 different genes. It fits a bell curve – what we’d expect from an undirected, ‘chance’ process – extremely well.
This is the data, you understand. What exactly about this presentation would you change?
Just out of curiosity, are there any other data or theories you would protect undergraduates from? (Should the Scopes trial not be mentioned in history class? Should the creation/evolution controversy be omitted from any civics course that covers modern politics? Should Roe v. Wade not be mentioned, too?)
August 30th, 2012 | 9:58 am
I wonder what he would have taught his kids.
August 30th, 2012 | 10:32 am
“. . . it still seems to me that you are saying “Darwin’s dangerous idea” should be made available on a limited basis and only to those who can deal with it.”
Why is it important to you to convict me of wanting to censor Darwin, which is frankly ridiculous? Like a dog returning to its vomit, you repeat the suggestion, because, I suspect, it permits you, in your own mind, to claim some sort of spurious high ground, of free thinking or some such simpleminded self-flattery. That suits only your vanity, and I care NOT if you are offended by that.
Bill Nye’s remarks—and the ostensible subject of this thread—is “What are the responsibilities of the parents of young children, as regards educating their children in science and why.” That’s it. Period. Perhaps it’s the simplicity of the actual point at issue here that confuses you so, I don’t know, but you WILL manufacture an artificial, sciamachic pseudo-drama starring a courageous free thinker, such as yourself, who confronts a cowardly poltroon, such as me, frightened by “Darwin’s dangerous idea [cue menacing bassoons].” Don’t make me laugh.
Not everything is suitable for young children. That’s it and done. Stop this self-serving effort to make it anything more.
As to your larger point, in your first paragraph, says you, says I. If you are not going to spell out one solitary argument held by “countless religious people who disagree” with me, then why bother? Am I to be struck dumb by the appearance of the word “countless”? Please don’t bother now. I shall have nothing more to say in reply.
August 30th, 2012 | 12:22 pm
“It’s honestly not clear to me that you actually understand the role that chance plays in the theory of evolution. So I’m really not clear what exactly you’re objecting to.”
I believe that I am SUFFICIENTLY conversant with the role of chance in Neo-Darwinism to discuss it intelligently. I make no claim to expertise though.
First of all, the meaning of randomness must be made more precise. I mean a stochastic process, namely, the best that can be achieved are (complex) statistical correlations among variables.
Now, apart from the very existence of beneficial in the sense of adaptive genetic mutations, which is entirely a matter of blind chance, during sexual reproduction, the unraveling of the DNA thread of one parent and its subsequent matching with the DNA of the other parent seems to me to be largely a matter of chance. Yet those match-ups determine which genes will be expressed, hence which adaptations will emerge at the level of phenotype. Evolution proceeds by matching mutations with changes in the environment; but both environmental changes and the genetic changes are both stochastic processes. the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs was not necessary as a logical or factual matter (unless you are a devoted Hegelian). Thus one set of randomly changing variables must match up with another to produce adaptive mutations, which makes evolution go. The parameter space is enormous, so any explanations are stochastic (in the sense of Kolmogorov chains).
Further, one aim of evolutionary science is to demonstrate how biological evolution is entirely dependent on prior chemical evolution, which itself is entirely dependent on pure chance, in the sense that a chain depends on its links to be what it is. A not unrepresentative example of current efforts at incorporating biological evolution into chemical evolution using Darwinism, is, for instance, found here [Journal of Systems Chemistry 2011, 2:1]:
“[T]he physicochemical principles responsible for abiogenesis, the so-called chemical phase—the stage in which inanimate matter complexified into a simple living system—are fundamentally the same as those responsible for biological evolution, though for the biological phase these principles are necessarily dressed up in biological garb. Darwin would no doubt have drawn enormous satisfaction from such a proposal, one that attempts to integrate Darwinian-type thinking into the physicochemical world.”
Such a theory is has been the Holy Grail of Darwinians since the days of Stanley Miller (about 1950) and his laughable Shazaam! experiments, which always remind me of nothing so much as Colin Clive screeching “It’s alive! It’s alive!” hoarsely, van de Graaf generators crackling away in the background to give the scene a patina of verisimilitude, in the 1931 James Whale film “Frankenstein.”
There is also this, from the same paper:
“[J]ust three years after the publication of Darwin’s monumental thesis, Haeckel [8,9] pointed out that ‘the chief defect of the Darwinian theory is that it throws no light on the origin of the primitive organism—probably a simple cell—from which all the others have descended. When Darwin assumes a special creative act for this first species, he is not consistent, and, I think, not quite sincere . . . .’ Surprisingly, this early concern seems to have dissipated with time. Thus a leading biologist, Richard Dawkins, in the opening line of his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ writes: ‘. . . our existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it.”
The authors go on to note that “. . . both chemical and biological replicators respond in a strikingly similar way to the replication-mutation-selection-evolution causal chain.” The chain is causal, I’d note, only after the random mutation has occurred. A sort of summation to their preface is then introduced:
“The implication is CLEAR: life’s emergence began with the CHANCE appearance of some relatively simple replicating chemical system, which then began the long road toward increasingly complex replicating entities. [emphasis supplied]”
I read this as affirming that “Clearly chance is not only irremovable from neo-darwinian thinking, such thinking is not neo-Darwinian without it.” Is that “Bull”? I don’t think so. Finally, I’ll note a highly revealing passage:
“[I]t is not sufficient to simply conclude that Darwinian concepts are applicable to chemical systems as well as biological ones. While not denying the didactic value of such thinking, the application of biological concepts to chemical phenomena is, in a scientific methodological sense, problematic, even flawed. Deeper insights into the biological-chemical connection can be provided, but only when the connection is approached in the REVERSE direction. [emphasis supplied]”
In other words: Reductionism of the crudest sort.
I bring this up only to SUGGEST that here is where Darwinists go wrong. The biology must, sooner or later, be used to explain the chemistry. I know that that must seem preposterous to any still reading this overly lengthy post because it flies in the face of what most people HAVE BEEN TAUGHT constitutes an explanation. But perhaps we must turn the problem around to make any progress. It very well may be that explanation, from L. explanare: “to flatten,” hence, “to discard higher-dimensional features of a phenomenon,” hence, “to trivialize” is just that. In which case a neologism is required. I will not attempt to supply one here. But the conflict between so-called Creationists, even those among them of the crudest, most unthinking variety, and the Neo-Darwinists, who are not bereft of buffoons either may be that the former are insisting that the understanding of matter, which is the principal end of science, I have always believed, will only come by starting with life and working downwards, all the way down to the atom. The Creationists, I contend are indicating this proper direction, but what they call God is what I am calling life.
About the year 100, St. John wrote: Jesus was light, and that light was the the life of men. And jesus Himself echoes that assertion. Is it possible that there is some content to those verses that today, in 2012, we might be in a position, as John was not, to recognize as purely physical rather than metaphorical or symbolic or what have you? I ask: Are not OUR BODIES full of light, which is to say, are they not replete with electromagnetism? Perhaps we don’t really know what electromagnetism is. I will say no more. I wrote an entire book devoted to the topic of mythology and its connection to human biology (The Body of Myth) that goes into such matters in some detail, and it would be inappropriate for me to run on any longer about it here.
August 30th, 2012 | 12:26 pm
The problem with many secular people today (including some scientists) is that they don’t seem to know the difference between practicing science and commiting philosophy.
August 30th, 2012 | 12:38 pm
It occurs to me, too late for the above, that the controversy might profitably e restated like so:
A) In any reductionist (read bottom-up) explanation of a complex system, for example, the human organism, arguments based in blind chance will be necessary as a matter of both logic and fact.
B) In any holistic (top-down) interpretation of a complex system the role of chance will be absent as a matter of both logic and fact.
C) A science based on B is preferable to one based on A.
August 30th, 2012 | 2:27 pm
Joe Sansonese – If it’s not too much trouble, I’m still hoping for clarification about your contention that the “interrelatedness… of species… is entirely dependent on blind chance”. Does this have to do with common descent or what?
I’m also not quite sure I follow this passage: “during sexual reproduction, the unraveling of the DNA thread of one parent and its subsequent matching with the DNA of the other parent” – are you referring to chromosomal crossover in meiosis?
The reason I ask is because “those match-ups” don’t “determine which genes will be expressed” so much as determine which will be present in the offspring. There’s a lot of complications (dominant and recessive traits being only the simplest issue) governing which genes get expressed, before you even get into how the environment affects gene expression. I suspect part of our problems communicating may be different vocabularies.
I also have a problem with your contention that “one aim of evolutionary science is to demonstrate how biological evolution is entirely dependent on prior chemical evolution”. So far as I can make out, you’re referring to abiogenesis. But this isn’t part of evolutionary science as such. I mean, people accepted Newton’s Laws even though they didn’t account for the origin of all motion! Even GR doesn’t do that! Are they not ‘science’?
It’s also puzzling that you’d bring this up in this context, anyway. I mean, abiogenesis isn’t part of any undergraduate course I’ve seen – certainly not presented as a scientific theory! At most, it might be mentioned as a hypothesis being researched. If you’re worried about protecting children from being exposed to abiogenesis, it would seem you can rest easy.
August 30th, 2012 | 3:12 pm
Surely, what is central to Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection is not “blind chance” – a rather slippery concept, I should have thought – but randomness. Now “random” is a well-known term, meaning “uncorrelated,” in other words, a relationship between events.
Thus, the numbers stored on my cell-phone form a random series – they cannot be generated by any algorithm shorter than themselves. To conclude that the series was the product of “blind chance” (in the sense of “unintended”) would be demonstrably false.
I fail to see how this affects the Christian belief that God eternally wills not only the things that come to pass, but the causes of them and the order in which those causes operate.
August 30th, 2012 | 3:12 pm
We really have to wind this discussion up as it has been going on far too long and threatens to escape the gravitational pull of the ostensible topic altogether, so if I do not address all that you like chalk it up mostly to exhaustion after writing several thousand words.
First, the distinction you make between evolutionary theory and whether or not abiogenesis is, strictly speaking, included in the former is too technical. Again, trying to maintain a tether to the actual topic, which has to do with popular perceptions of Neo-Darwinism and how it is promulgated, the statement by Dawkins quoted in the JSC paper I referenced above is far closer to the reality than the nice distinction you make. I will simply quote the passage entire again:
“[J]ust three years after the publication of Darwin’s monumental thesis, Haeckel [8,9] pointed out that ‘the chief defect of the Darwinian theory is that it throws no light on the origin of the primitive organism—probably a simple cell—from which all the others have descended. When Darwin assumes a special creative act for this first species, he is not consistent, and, I think, not quite sincere . . . .’ Surprisingly, this early concern seems to have dissipated with time. Thus a leading biologist, Richard Dawkins, in the opening line of his book ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ writes: ‘. . . our existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it.”
“Our existence(!)” mind you. Signed sealed and delivered by Darwin and Wallace, who “solved it.” THAT is why I do not rest at all “easy” when it comes to teaching evolution to children. It matters not at all whether Darwin’s declaration of a special creation was or was not “sincere,” Dawkins’ headstrong rush to the goalposts without even caring whether the ball is actually in hand is just what I was objecting to when, in my first post on this thread, I wrote:
“Your typical scientific proposal, it should hardly need reminding, is not routinely used by so-called Secularists to ‘prove’ that religion is discredited, that normative morality is no more than the law of the jungle, or that God does not exist, not now, not ever (that list could be augmented considerably). Nor does it much seem to matter to excitable Secularists that none of those topics was actually addressed by Charles Darwin or in any subsequent textbook presentations of evolution.”
Nye ignores all of that when he—disingenuously, in my opinion—scolds Creationist parents, who are as aware of the blather of the Dawkinses of this world as the next man and want to protect their children from the extravagant claims that seem inevitably to come with the territory, so to speak. Further, as I have said, Nye limns a preposterous scenario to justify his position.
August 30th, 2012 | 3:36 pm
It strikes me that using the single word “science” may cause us to overlook fundamental dissimilarities in the fields thus described. At the very least, and with some admittedly fuzzy boundaries, one can distinguish
1. Experimental physical science
2. Observational physical science
3. Historical physical science
4. Social science.
The superficial similarity of methodology in these fields does not give them equal credibility. One can reasonably hold experimental science in high regard while holding grave misgivings about the theories of the historical sciences (including those that deal with origins) and the social sciences.
More than this, one should recognize that science gives us understanding of the creation largely in the sense that it allows us to make successful predictions about its behavior and thus to manipulate it into greater conformity with our will. Science does little to teach us the nature of created things (and most especially of man), the nature by which they reveal their Creator and invite us into communion with Him. It is, perhaps, relevant to note that at the tower of Babel the Lord mercifully confused the languages to spare men the disaster of fulfilling their own corrupt wills.
Thus the concern for having enough scientists and engineers to maintain the current pace of scientific discovery and technological innovation and to “keep America on top of a global economy” strikes me as misplaced, at least in a Christian audience. Do our science and technologies primarily help us fulfill our nature (i.e., conformity to the image of Christ), or do they increase the speed with which we corrupt it through the realization of our will? Does our economy primarily serve to reduce envy and greed and to increase contentment and generosity, or does it do the opposite? Does the mercy of medical missions outweigh the mass murder of “medically safe” abortion? Does the development of high-yield grains outweigh the commodification of food? Does the time gained by labor-saving devices promote my prayer life more than television, mp3 players, and Internet connections distract me from it?
Unless the answers to these questions obviously favor science”, I suggest that parents teaching their children creationism pose a negligible threat to our society.
August 30th, 2012 | 5:31 pm
Reid: It is, perhaps, relevant to note that at the tower of Babel the Lord mercifully confused the languages to spare men the disaster of fulfilling their own corrupt wills. (…) Does the mercy of medical missions outweigh the mass murder of “medically safe” abortion?
Yet one of the “Lord’s” commands was to commit mass murder against the Amalekites.
Reid: Does the time gained by labor-saving devices promote my prayer life more than television, mp3 players, and Internet connections distract me from it?
What a question.
August 30th, 2012 | 5:43 pm
Joe Sansonese –
I could dispute your characterization (especially in regards to morality), but that’s as may be. Here’s my point – can you find any examples of anything like that in any undergraduate curriculum?
Absent that, you (or the parents you posit) seem to be worried about something that just doesn’t apply to schools. If they are worried about the conclusions some people draw from evolution, they can discuss them with their children. But blocking them from learning established science in science class, because some people draw undesired conclusions from it, is rather another thing.
August 30th, 2012 | 7:39 pm
Correcting previous post:
——
Gregor Mendel seemed to do just fine, I wonder what he would have taught _his_ kids.
August 31st, 2012 | 9:01 am
“Here’s my point – can you find any examples of anything like that in any undergraduate curriculum?”
It seems that a comment I posted that addressed this question, which you ha asked previously, was not put up.
Here is my very brief answer: You’re raising a red herring. Neither I nor Nye are talking about undergraduates. We are talking about “Children.” Absent a peculiar need on your part to frame my position in the most preposterous circumstances, that much should be easy to see, I think. In my posts I repeatedly (some 30 times) use the word “children,” “young children,” “the parents of young children,” the thread has the word “children” in its title—good grief, how in hell do find yourself licensed to shift the discussion to “undergraduates”? Undergraduates are NOT children. I’m guessing that it’s easier fencing with a phantom. Does ANY possibility of confusion on the point remain?
You may ask more questions of me if you like, but I’m not going to answer them. After 46 comments, the Nye discussion has gone on long enough and is widening too indiscriminately for substantive give and take. Much worse, it’s becoming pointlessly repetitive, hence boring.
August 31st, 2012 | 10:36 am
Joe Sansonese –
But that’s exactly my point.
Abiogenesis isn’t even covered in undergraduate courses, much less K-12. If you’re worried about science classes teaching abiogenesis (before it becomes settled science, anyway, if it ever does), then you’re worried about nothing.
August 31st, 2012 | 10:39 am
Michael PS –
Actually, I’d think that Natural Selection would be central to Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. And that isn’t “blind chance”, “random”, or “uncorrelated”.
August 31st, 2012 | 1:37 pm
Alyosha: Gregor Mendel seemed to do just fine, I wonder what he would have taught _his_ kids.
What kids? I thought he was a monk.
September 1st, 2012 | 3:21 pm
I haven’t paid much attention to this, but I would guess that Nye is objecting to any account of our origins that rejects the relevant well established scientific theories.
In other words, your articles of faith.
At one point, there was (maybe) nothing. Then there was (definitely) something. Science is as faith-based as anyone else when it claims to know exactly how one state got to the other, when things started being, how they started being, and how they got from that point to this point.
It isn’t true that scientific “theories” are all equal. Evolution is very strong if you’re talking about germs today, but very speculative if you’re talking about how and when life as we know it arose.
And it’s not entirely honest to present these two types of information as if they were equally probable, had equal levels of certainty.
I’ve never met anyone who actually disbelieves “evolution” – if you restrict yourself to that which is actually demonstrable. It’s only the part where science starts telling a creation story – only not acknowledging that it involves leaps of faith – that is where the dispute begins.
It’s not clear why your articles of faith are self-evidently better than that guy’s articles of faith.
Incidentally, I don’t have any articles of faith on this subject: I don’t know when nothing turned into something, or how – but I’m pretty sure something miraculous happened.
(I will absolutely accept that if science’s core premises are true (that is, if there is no such thing as the supernatural, and the premises of materialism are correct, and Occam*’s razor can be viewed as a reliable guide to what is and is not real), then it is demonstrably true that evolutionary theory is absolutely worth having faith in. The problem is, I don’t accept on faith that there is no such thing as the supernatural, I don’t accept the premises of materialism, and Ockam*’s razor leads to wrong conclusions frequently – especially when we’re dealing with events that are distant in time and/or huge in scope, such as one is inevitably going to find in origin narratives.)
I heard about this Bill Nye thing from a youngster I had formerly pegged as hard liberal. He had loved Nye so much, and it upset him so to know that Nye has jumped on the “Christian-hating bandwagon”. (Even though he still doesn’t for an instant believe God created the Earth or its inhabitants). Wouldn’t it be funny if hatred and inability to “coexist” with rival ideologies and beliefs turns out to be a major turnoff no matter which religion is practicing it?
* alas: both spellings get the spellchecker redline.
September 1st, 2012 | 7:12 pm
Blake: I heard about this Bill Nye thing from a youngster I had formerly pegged as hard liberal. He had loved Nye so much, and it upset him so to know that Nye has jumped on the “Christian-hating bandwagon”.
Again with the persecution complex. The mere fact that someone believes in science, does not mean that he hates ‘Christians’ – any more than that notorious atheist known as the pope hates ‘Christians’, because he accepts the scientific theory of evolution.
September 2nd, 2012 | 1:50 pm
Blake –
Why are you jumping to cosmology from biological evolution? The doctrine of Original Sin doesn’t explain how something came from nothing, either – is all of Christianity therefore doubtful?
No, it’s not speculative beyond ‘today’. That species arose from common descent, over the course of 3.5 billion years, is as established as literally anything in science. Natural selection, genetic drift, and the other mechanisms have accounted for that development in an incredibly solid manner, including in every putative case of ‘irreducible complexity’ yet advanced.
As to “how life arose“, that’s not known, yet, but it’s not quite as much of a mystery as it’s been in the past.
I repeat to you the challenge that I gave to Jack Sansonese – can you find any coverage of abiogenesis at the undergraduate or K-12 level that presents it as anything but a hypothesis being researched? In other words… no, they are not presented as if they have “equal levels of certainty”.
(And I’ve already pointed out that disagree with you about how you use the word faith, but that’s a separate issue.)
September 3rd, 2012 | 10:07 am
“As Nye points out, evolution is fundamental to our understanding of the known universe. ”
I have a degree in engineering. This was obtained without reference to the theory of evolution. In fact, in none of the math or hard science courses did my professors ever have a need to reference this theory. So, I’d say you can relax, Katherine Infantine. Even if the whole world disbelieved in the theory of evolution, life would go on just fine.
September 3rd, 2012 | 9:58 pm
Olaf – Nye actually points out that young-Earth creationism is contrary to our understanding of the known universe. It goes against geology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, and biology.
You can disagree with just evolution, but then biology becomes a complete amorphous mess. And you’ve still got real problems with the fossil record, which touches on geology, chemistry, and physics.
I concede that some fine engineers can get along without evolution, or even suffering from young-Earth creationism. I still think they’ll be the poorer for it, though.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact