Bill Nye The Science Guy: Parents, do not teach creationism
Bill Nye The Science Guy has created a two-minute You Tube video for online knowledge group Big Think in which he defends evolution and ask parents not to raise creationist kids. Nye hosted a popular kids science show in the 1990s.
From NBC News via Channel 11’s website:
“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States,” Nye says in the video. After praising the U.S. as the world’s most advanced technological society, he credits that ranking to “intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.”
Nye goes on to say that he asks those who don’t believe in evolution to explain to him why they feel that way, and that “your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution…”
“And 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,” Nye says. “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.”
What do you think of Bill Nye asking parents not to teach creationism? What are you teaching at home? Do you have a hard time bringing together your faith and evolution? Does Nye’s argument sway you? Is this just an issue in the South?
(This is a hot-button issue. Please try to use your best manners on the blog.)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
216 comments Add your comment
IntelligentDesign
August 30th, 2012
6:41 pm
Aquagirl,
Currently at a hot spot on the way home so I haven’t read all the responses. But I formulated my answers to your post while my wife drove. I will read the other posts either late tonight or tomorrow after work:
#1 “First, if the nucleotide sequence was randomly altered, why wouldn’t we currently have genetic diseases? We’re not the “final product.”
You and I are going to disagree on the “final product”. We are basically dealing with a situation where the bad mutations outnumber the good mutations. Over time, you have to have a net loss in functionality if evolution is not weeding out the bad mutations which appears it is not doing.
#2 “Second, a mutation you consider “bad” might be passed along but not expressed in the phenotype, the physical form.”
Yes, but the bad mutation is still being passed on. Plus, there are only so many allels and each bad mutation corrupts yet another allele. Wouldn’t we end up with an organism that is genetically inferior to the original organism prior to all these bad mutations collecting since there are more bad mutations than good ones?
#3 “Third, whether that alteration is worse depends on the environment. ”
The two supposed advantages that you mention unfortunately come along with a package that you really wouldn’t want. And having red-green color blindness is such a weak argument I wouldn’t even mention that one, in fact that sounds like a single mutation delivered two negative traits in a single mutation. Finally, what are the stats regarding the number of good traits that come along with the 6500 horrible packages that bad mutations are delivering?
I find that stats are a hard thing to come by when it comes to mutations, especially when it comes to the exact number of good vs bad mutations.
#4 “Fourth, people with these “bad” genes are helped by our culture. ”
So it takes “intellgent thought” to fix what mutations have broken.
#5 “Fifth, that genetic disorder may not cause problems until later in life, when you’re past the age of reproduction.”
Same answer as in #2. The genetic disorder is still being passed on to future generations. Since there are 6500 of them that implies to me that they are collecting. Since the number of bad mutations outnumber the good mutations, the resulting organism eventually ends up with an inferior genetic makeup.
#6 “Sixth, not all genetic diseases are caused by inheritance, which seems to be your point, that the “bad” genes would be suppressed by evolution. ”
So you are saying that these particular diseases are ‘one time shots’ correct? If so, do we have any numbers on this like how many of the 6500 are one time problems? Again, there always seems to be missing numbers when it comes to the subject of mutations.
Well, after going thru that list, I still don’t see an answer to my original question which is “Why isn’t evolution weeding out 6500+ (minus the one time shot genetic diseases which at this point we have no numbers for) genetic diseases (bad mutations)”?
By the way, I would like your thoughts on the following:
Putting amino acids together in a specific sequence that achieves a specific protein conformation and function is evidence of programming. In fact in concept, it is the same exact thing as what a computer programmer does, putting together individual instructions that achieves a specific function. For this to work, the program has to be put together correctly or else it will fail. This requires intellect – it doesn’t happen by accident.
Also, of the two, the amino acid programming is much more complex. I don’t think any human being, given a specific amino acid sequence, can tell you exactly what shape that protein is going to take.
Finally, one thing I have noticed regarding mutations, is the absence of key factual numbers. When biology text books talk about mutations, they do not give any numbers when it comes to the number of good and bad mutations. As an example, the following comes from a very popular biology textbook: “Occasionally, such a mutation leads to an improved protein… But much more often, such mutations are detrimental…” Keeping in mind that the entire theory is based upon mutations, then you would expect that the number of good and bad mutations would be expressed in factual numbers. But instead those values are expressed in the words “occasionally” and “much more often”. How can an entire scientific theory be based on the words “occasionally” and “much more often”?
M.E.
August 30th, 2012
6:51 pm
I am always amazed when people say that we’ve taken God out of everything and that’s ruining our society. What if it’s because people keep requiring others to believe in a particular God and pray to this God, and boast about this God, and bully and humiliate those who don’t believe in this God that’s causing all the problems?
Progress
August 30th, 2012
6:54 pm
I’m always amused when creationists search and search for one detail about evolution that science hasn’t explained yet or is most open to revision and then sit back and say, “You see? That proves the bible is right!”
Evolution has been verified many times over through fossil records, geological records, biology, medicine, genetics, embryology, and anthropology. And all are open to revision, but the scientific theory is as much a fact as gravity, light, germs, and atoms.
Show me one experimental study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that provides evidence for creationism or intelligent design. But I guess it’s easy to fool yourself into believing fiction when you’ve already been indoctrinated into a cult.
Falsehoods
August 30th, 2012
7:10 pm
I have been reading through the numerous comments on this site and I must say I find it appalling as well as infuriating how many falsehoods are being blatantly posted just to prove a point that you refuse to concede to the “Opposing Team”. Within the first few posts on this website there were already people like mom and Chris who clearly do not understand how evolution works yet are deny it as a legitmate theory with a large amount of actual evidence behind it. Asides for posts like those there were also a reasonable amount of posts claiming that science is actually worthless because it never really helps anything due to the fact that it is entirely composed of theories that change on a dime. I take one look at these and then wonder how a person can be so ignorant of how science has shaped our live for the better while they are typing on a computer keyboard. There was even a post that said that because of Newtons laws there must always be a cause to an effect. However through studying quantum mechanics we learn that random and sometimes unexplicable things happen a lot. Finally there were the people that felt it was necessary to prove the because there are intelligent people who believe in God/Creation that all the people who believe in God/Creation must also be intelligent or God/Creation can not be discredited.
Aside from those various posts I would also like to discuss my stance on this matter. Although I do not believe in God and the majority of its teachings I do think that there are lessons in the Bible and other religious books that are worth noting. However when you see how likely it is for religion to be something that humans generated with their own minds I feel that it has to be discredited. For example the majority of major religions share similarities like the existence of heaven where they will be rewarded for their life on Earth. This seems to derive from the fear of death which is a natural fear that every human experiences. Religion as a whole is really just an explanation for the inexplicable; a early undeveloped attempt at what science strives to do. However religion failed to provide evidence for its wild claims which is the forefront of science. If you are part of the group of people the believes it must be true because it was written about and past down through the generations the I urge you to take a look at the game telephone. This game involves a chain of people, the person at the front will pass a phase or action to the person next to him and that person will pass it on to the next, so on and so forth. At the end of the chain you often see contorted actions or strange phrases as people could not perfectly replicate them. Now imagine this same game except with religious stories over thousands of years and you can see how easily it could have been changed from something that happened. The Bible is at this point no better than a modern day fiction novel.
To conclude my post I would like to mention what I believe Bill Nye’s intentions were when he created this video. These beliefs that people are taught from birth are ingrained in them, and it is not their fault if they believe that to be the truth because their are told it is. However these beliefs are also holding back the advance of human life on to bigger and better things. Bill was trying to tell people to eliminate that continued weight on science’s back. You may feel that it imposed on your right as a person to live in a certain way that you feel is correct. I only hope that you will take a look at what science has to present to you and make the conscious decision to change your way of life for the better.
NAM no no
August 30th, 2012
7:21 pm
Bill Nye is a regular on the loco Coast to Coast AM network. Google it, and find out who Bill Nye really is — a new age nutter who probably believes in werewolves, but not God. He’s got an agenda.
jpm52433
August 30th, 2012
7:30 pm
*** What if it’s because people keep requiring others to believe in a particular God and pray to this God, and boast about this God, and bully and humiliate those who don’t believe in this God that’s causing all the problems?
Do you have any contemporary evidence to show that believers bully and humiliate non-believers? And if so, what are “all the problems” it’s causing? If not, what’s causing “all the problems?”
jpm52433
August 30th, 2012
7:37 pm
*** Evolution has been verified many times over through fossil records, geological records, biology, medicine, genetics, embryology, and anthropology. And all are open to revision, but the scientific theory is as much a fact as gravity, light, germs, and atoms.
No matter what your belief, if I drop a rock it will fall to the earth. The existence of gravity is an inescapable, uncontestable fact. But finding a portion of an ancient jaw bone and hypothesizing the rest of the creature…or even if you were to find an entire skeleton…and attribute certain similarities to a modern animal, that is not proof the creature is a devolved ancestor of the modern animal. That is the arrogance of evolution.
jahrac
August 30th, 2012
7:46 pm
a wise man by the name of Josh McDowell once said that when you are comparing two different ideas or beliefs that you have to compare them equally. What you use against one you have to equally use against the other. I would challenge all of you to go to this website creation.com , and dont let other people make your mind up for u, but u make your own mind up.
Aquagirl
August 30th, 2012
7:50 pm
Well, after going thru that list, I still don’t see an answer to my original question which is “Why isn’t evolution weeding out 6500+ (minus the one time shot genetic diseases which at this point we have no numbers for) genetic diseases (bad mutations)”?
I think you’re still missing some critical points:
There are not “bad” genes. The fact you may not want them (like red-green color blindness) does not make them “bad”. This is why I keep saying “bad” in quotation marks. You have decided there are 6500 “bad” genes ( a number which you apparently got from a cut and paste on the internet) and want to know why they’re still in the gene pool, so to speak.
You may not see the benefit of red-green color blindness or sickle cell. You may not want them personally. But they arose because they conferred an advantage. If you don’t understand why a sickle cell trait that is partially protective against malaria might be passed on, I can’t really help you with that. Having three children that live and one that dies from sickle cell beats having three children die from malaria and one that lives. More of your children will survive, and they will carry that sickle cell gene.
You also seem confused between phenotype and genotype. You can have a gene for a certain disease or condition, and not have that disease or condition. If the gene is not expressed—i.e., it has no effect—why would evolution select against that gene? Nothing happened.
In short, you’re not getting the answers you want because you don’t understand the basics. Most genetic diseases aren’t caused by a “bad” gene that’s like a cootie passed along to everyone. Genes can be there but not cause the disorder. They can be “bad” because something went wrong in replication. Like a kid in juvie, they may have had a bright start and just effed up along the way.
I can see why you think there should be a solid number out there for “good” vs. “bad” mutations if you think there are “good” vs. “bad” mutations. A geneticist will give you prevalence… i.e. this disorder occurs once out of every xxx number of births. That’s as close as you’ll get. Nobody sits around counting “good” vs. “bad” genes.
Putting amino acids together in a specific sequence that achieves a specific protein conformation and function is evidence of programming….. For this to work, the program has to be put together correctly or else it will fail. This requires intellect
Molecules and amino acids can arrange themselves without a programmer. When you drop oil into water, it clumps. Nobody is programming that, it’s a function of chemistry. Nobody assembled the H2O either, the hydrogen and oxygen hook up that way. Also, that “programmer” screws up pretty often, if a human messed up on the job as much as our reproductive cells, they’d be fired pronto.
HB
August 30th, 2012
7:55 pm
It troubles me to read how many people lack understanding not just of the theory of evolution, but of the scientific method and basic terms like scientific theory and hypothesis. As for those of you saying there is more evidence of creation than evolution and that you have evidence of the existence of God, you are wrong. Period. And I say that as a Christian who believes in God and that evolution is a process God created. There is absolutely no observable evidence to support my belief. Can’t prove it, can’t test it. But isn’t that the nature of faith? Believing in something beyond what we can see, hear, or touch? Why would believers push for creationism to be taught in science class or fund “scientific” institutes to prove our world is based on intelligent design? Faith is not science, so why do people want so badly to try to put it in that box? We can choose to have faith or not, but those of us who choose to have faith have to accept that we can never prove we are right and should not try to present our faith-based beliefs as facts.
jpm52433
August 30th, 2012
8:49 pm
*** However when you see how likely it is for religion to be something that humans generated with their own minds I feel that it has to be discredited.
How do you arrive at the conclusion that religion was simply “made up” by our ancestors? So many arrogant elitists today imagine our ancestors were ignorant and simple-minded people. They didn’t have eyes to see, ears to hear or minds to process facts and evidence. If Moses claimed God spoke to him, he must be either lying or delusional…and those who believed him must be saps, because unlike the elitists of today, they couldn’t tell a credible source from a snake-oil salesman. The same with eyewitnesses who saw Jesus walk on water or rise from the dead…liars and conspirators all. Of course, with their leader dead and the Romans and Jews bearing down, they had every incentive to keep preaching the phony gospel, even when it cost them their lives. It makes perfect sense.
*** For example the majority of major religions share similarities like the existence of heaven where they will be rewarded for their life on Earth.
If this were a “scientific theory,” you would be heralding that commonality as evidence the theory was correct…”95% of scientists agree”…but since the commonality is associated with religion, it magically shows how silly religion is. The hypocrisy is staggering.
*** However religion failed to provide evidence for its wild claims which is the forefront of science.
The Abrahamic religions are founded on a host of contextually credible eyewitness testimony and supported by archaeological evidence.
*** If you are part of the group of people the believes it must be true because it was written about and past down through the generations the I urge you to take a look at the game telephone.
To claim that our ancestors were incapable of passing both a consistent oral and written tradition down through the generations is both ignorant and insulting to our ancestors. This was sacred information and was treated as such…not like a kids game for amusement.
*** The Bible is at this point no better than a modern day fiction novel.
The Bible and the Torah are demonstrably consistent over thousands of years and thousands of editions…not something you can say about your favorite fiction novel. Perhaps a closer examination of history and religion might open your mind to the possibilities.
usually lurking
August 30th, 2012
8:53 pm
@HB, exactly. And I think overall that’s the point Bill Nye is trying to make – do not present faith-based beliefs as scientific facts; do not discourage or prevent your children from learning the scientific method. Belief in a higher power is not incompatible with the existence of science.
And, I am amazed that after 160 or so posts, no one has yet mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Quira
August 30th, 2012
9:18 pm
Bill Nye needs to mind his own business. Why in the world is it his business what I teach my kids. It’s a sin to raise a kid to be a democrat. It’s child abuse to raise a liberal which is after all a form of mental illness. Let’s push on those parents who raise their kids to suckle at the teat of the state as criminal. We would all be better off.
Bill Nye The Science Guy: Parents, do not teach creationism | Hits 1,000
August 30th, 2012
9:30 pm
[...] Bill Nye The Science Guy: Parents, do not teach creationism Bill Nye The Science Guy has created a two-minute You Tube video for online knowledge group Big Think in which he defends evolution and ask parents not to raise creationist kids. Nye hosted a popular kids science show in the 1990s. From NBC News via … Read more on Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]
Progress
August 30th, 2012
10:07 pm
jpm @ 7:37-
Scientists are still figuring out how gravity works. They used to think it functioned like a string with the center mass of one object pulling on the other. Now they believe that the mass of an object acts as a net and warps the space-time continuum, causing the smaller object to fall towards the larger one. So, regardless of your anecdotal observations, the theory (and facts) of gravitation are still changing. Evolution is just as much an inescapable, incontestable fact. You just choose not to admit it because it contradicts your indoctrination.
The malarkey you posted at 8:49 was just a way to rationalize and obfuscate so that you can continue to deny the truth. You see far too much validity in the superstitious musings of primitive hunter-gatherers and Bronze Age farmers. The historical accuracy of their stories is limited to where they were wandering and who they were at war with. To believe that their knowledge of the origins of the universe and of life are any more factual than any of the other creation myths put forth by primitive people is the height of delusion. But you have made it your mission to carry on the primitive myths at all cost, so no amount of reason or evidence will be of any use. Even an intervention would likely not be successful in bringing you back to the real world. Thank you for providing a living example of the sad state of education that Mr. Nye was referring to. I hope that one day you can break free from the fog and use your one life for something more positive.
Justawasteofmytime
August 30th, 2012
10:15 pm
@Intelligent Design – I would suggest you read more about genetics. You have given the ongoing existence of diseases caused by mutations as proof against evolution. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
Genetic disorders that cause disease or death are rare but continue to exist because they generally confer a competitive DISADVANTAGE to reproduction, but do not PREVENT reproduction. The most common fatal genetic disorders are autosomal recessive. That means that, EVEN WHEN both parents are carriers, only 25% of the children will have the condition. 25% will not have the genes, and 50% will live to REPRODUCE and PASS ALONG the disorder. The same is true of autosomal dominant and other types of genetic disorders, but the probabilities are different.
I resent the time it took to respond to just one of dozens of error-filled comments, but felt I had to make at least one small contribution, given the astoundingly ill-informed comments by creationists. I find it amazing that some of the comments were repeats of comments that had already been refuted in responses on this blog. Creationists don’t seem to pay attention. Or maybe they’re not strong readers. Someone posted a great website earlier – http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/. Creationists, please go and don’t come back unless you’ve read it all.
Grandma always said that some folks are dumber than a bag of hammers, are incapable of thinking critically and you’ll never convince them with reason. Sometimes that’s due to emotional immaturity, other times stunted intellect (see Quira above), other times folks are just dogmatic and aren’t open to ideas that clash with their world view. There’s nothing I can do to change that, just keep religion in Sunday School, where it belongs, and out of my kids’ science class.
waterstim
August 30th, 2012
10:31 pm
One split second after he passes, he will wish to God that he had never spoken this feeble-minded drivel.
Justawasteofmytime
August 30th, 2012
10:50 pm
Let me guess, waterstim, top of your class? I would tell you to read Progress’s 6:54 comment or Falsehoods comment from 7:10, but I know that you only believe what your Daddy told you. That’s the only reason you’re Christian and you would be an equally fanatical muslim if you had been born in Iran. Frankly, I truly feel that people like you and the Taliban should be kept from reaping the benefits of science. All others – pardon the tirade, but I am tired of ignorance and stupidity.
IntelligentDesign
August 30th, 2012
10:59 pm
Justawasteofmytime
If 50% will pass along the disorder, then the mutation is not being weeded out which is the point I am trying to make. What am I missing here?
But let me ask a question I have been wanting to ask for a long time. Positive mutations supposedly introduce small changes over a very long period of time. My question is, couldn’t negative mutations also introduce small changes over a very long period time? Small enough where natural selection would not have weeded out those changes.
waterstim
August 30th, 2012
11:05 pm
Justawasteofmytime, if you are tired of ignorance and stupidity, then you should shut the hell up. You WILL remember this moment one day.
BlondeHoney
August 30th, 2012
11:08 pm
Aquagirl is my hero :)
BlondeHoney
August 30th, 2012
11:09 pm
And Progress too (is my hero) :)
waterstim
August 30th, 2012
11:09 pm
On second thought, just go hug Jay Sandusky Bookman or Barry Enema Obama. It might make a bed-wetting hand-wringer like you, feel much better.
Justawasteofmytime
August 30th, 2012
11:16 pm
@intelligentdesign
The defective gene isn’t being eliminated from the population, but there are less offspring. The cumulative impact over many generations is very big.
Mutations that cause disease, premature death, or some other disadvantage mean less offspring.
Justawasteofmytime
August 30th, 2012
11:23 pm
@waterstim You must have been Captain of the Debate Team, too! Can you rebut my ideas! No! You’re not smart enough.
IntelligentDesign
August 30th, 2012
11:25 pm
Aquagirl
“Molecules and amino acids can arrange themselves without a programmer.”
That’s not true when it comes to making a protein. The amino acids used to make a protein are assembled in an exact, specific programmed order.
But I would like to ask a question. Computer programs sometimes have an error called a storage overlay where the program instructions get overlaid with random data, the same thing in concept to a mutation which is basically an overlay of a group of nucleotides. My question is, how often do you think that random storage overlays result in an enhanced program that works better than it did before the overlay occurred?
A reader
August 30th, 2012
11:27 pm
After reading this comments, is it any wonder WHY the US is ranked so low in STEM?? When up to 40% of the population reject science because of a book written by HUMANS 2000 years ago, then that is the answer.
People who reject the “theory” of evolution, I dare you to hold an apple at arms length and release it. And then witness the “theory” of gravity. Science IS theory. If the US deprives children of the ability to think outside of what their parent’s believe, then may God help us.
DS
August 30th, 2012
11:29 pm
Bill Nye and others like him cannot understand, or refuse to understand and accept that one can believe in creationism and yet thoroughly understand evolution. In fact, periodically news reports come out with scientist who finally come out at risk to their careers (or because they do have to worry about their careers at risk) to express their reservations and disagreements with evolution.
Furthermore, Bill Nye seems to indicate that he believes evolution has to do with every area of science, yet evolution really has more to do with biology and less to do with physics and chemistry for example. Therefore, I do not see what his problem is, unless it really is an unstated bigotry toward religion. . .
Kat
August 30th, 2012
11:45 pm
*** Do you understand that atheists do not believe in hell? Therefore, the threat is meaningless!
To paraphrase our “scientific” friends here…”Hell might be true whether or not you believe in it.” ; )
But, it ISN’T true, you see. Are you getting it now?
Everyone who goes to church take a step forward, everyone who donates the appropriate amount (10% for tithing, PLUS offering) take a step forward. If you don’t do either of these things and say you are a Christian, then you are a liar as well.
jpm5243
August 31st, 2012
3:21 am
Progress…
*** Scientists are still figuring out how gravity works. They used to think it functioned like a string with the center mass of one object pulling on the other. Now they believe that the mass of an object acts as a net and warps the space-time continuum, causing the smaller object to fall towards the larger one.
Interestingly, their lack of knowing how gravity works hasn’t prevented scientists from telling us how gravity works.
*** So, regardless of your anecdotal observations, the theory (and facts) of gravitation are still changing.
As are the facts of almost every “scientific” theory…and again, the little issue of scientists NOT knowing the facts doesn’t seem to deter them from telling us what they are.
*** Evolution is just as much an inescapable, incontestable fact. You just choose not to admit it because it contradicts your indoctrination.
I’m afraid it’s your indoctrination that prevents you from looking at the evidence honestly. It also seems to have prevented you from answering a few simple questions concerning the theory of evolution.
*** The malarkey you posted at 8:49 was just a way to rationalize and obfuscate so that you can continue to deny the truth.
Then wouldn’t this be the perfect opportunity for you to share the truth with us by answering those simple questions I asked? If you know the “truth” then the answers should be easy. I wonder why you won’t share the “truth” with us?
*** You see far too much validity in the superstitious musings of primitive hunter-gatherers and Bronze Age farmers. The historical accuracy of their stories is limited to where they were wandering and who they were at war with.
And yet you have no problem at all putting great stock in the historical accuracy of primitives like Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, Plutarch, Josephus, etc, who were almost never in attendance at the events they chronicle. Is this simply hypocrisy, or is there some other reason you choose to believe one primitive over another?
*** To believe that their knowledge of the origins of the universe and of life are any more factual than any of the other creation myths put forth by primitive people is the height of delusion.
And yet here you are, in all your presumed intellectual superiority, claiming to know the origins of the universe and life itself. Who’s more delusional, the people who actually spoke to God, or someone who simply takes the word of “scientists” without examining the actual evidence, or even having the expertise to do so if you were so inclined?
*** But you have made it your mission to carry on the primitive myths at all cost, so no amount of reason or evidence will be of any use. Even an intervention would likely not be successful in bringing you back to the real world. Thank you for providing a living example of the sad state of education that Mr. Nye was referring to. I hope that one day you can break free from the fog and use your one life for something more positive.
So now the arrogance of elitist liberals is the definition of “enlightened?” I’m sure the other 98% of the world would agree with you. Thank you for dispelling the primitive notion of God in favor of your more “educated” point of view…or the more “educated” point of view you’ll have tomorrow after “science” has revised it’s theories yet again.
jpm5243
August 31st, 2012
3:27 am
*** Mutations that cause disease, premature death, or some other disadvantage mean less offspring.
Thank God, otherwise we’d be hip-deep in liberals who know the “truth” and are more than happy to impose it on the rest of us. ; )
jpm5243
August 31st, 2012
3:31 am
*** Mutations that cause disease, premature death, or some other disadvantage mean less offspring.
If that were true, then negative mutations would disappear in just a few generations…and yet they don’t.
jpm5243
August 31st, 2012
3:34 am
*** @waterstim You must have been Captain of the Debate Team, too! Can you rebut my ideas! No! You’re not smart enough.
So now you only have to prove your point by being an A-hole and attacking the person questioning your point of view? How enlightened. How liberal.
jpm5243
August 31st, 2012
3:39 am
*** People who reject the “theory” of evolution, I dare you to hold an apple at arms length and release it. And then witness the “theory” of gravity.
So now gravity proves evolution? Wow, that is “progressive.”
*** Science IS theory. If the US deprives children of the ability to think outside of what their parent’s believe, then may God help us.
Except if that person is the child of enlightened liberals…then believing what your parents believe is a sign of “enlightenment”…except that God won’t help you, because “enlightened” people don’t really believe in the “primitive” notion of God.
jpm5243
August 31st, 2012
4:28 am
### To paraphrase our “scientific” friends here…”Hell might be true whether or not you believe in it.” ; )
*** But, it ISN’T true, you see. Are you getting it now?
Yes, of course, I get it now…what Kat believes makes it true and what Kat doesn’t believe makes it untrue. A universal “truth.” Fascinating…life is so much simpler now. ; )
Stunned
August 31st, 2012
6:09 am
Some of the comments here are frighteningly ill-informed. It is little wonder when you read this thread that people can suspend all logic and ignore all evidence to believe in Creationism. The internet really does give license to people to blather on about which they know little. I understand why Bill Nye is on high alert about this. If people are teaching their children about Creationism in the same way they are saying it on this thread, we do have a crisis on our hands. It’s simply not true people. There’s no debate, no competing theories, no great unknowns, no your opinion vs. my opinion. It’s just not true, plain and simple. People of faith don’t need to twist themselves into this pretzel of nonsense to continue believing. But, they sure should be questioning why their church demands they believe in something that defies all logic and evidence.
Pieter Jordaan
August 31st, 2012
6:24 am
Why does the Pope drive around in a bullet proof car? How do you explain dinosaur bones?
Better yet, why are there so many different religions if we were all created by one god?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
Stop infecting your kids with your narrow mindedness!
Tom
August 31st, 2012
7:08 am
If you teach your children a creation myth, how did you choose which one to teach them?
Tom
August 31st, 2012
7:18 am
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/30/genome-mysterious-extinct-human-completed-scientists-say/?intcmp=features
MountainDawg
August 31st, 2012
11:33 am
@ “There Is No God” – You’d best accept Christ as Savior to truly find peace and happiness….because this world and us humans here within can/will NEVER provide any relief for your anger and bitterness. You’ll never be tranquil in your soul without Jesus Christ.
jpm5243
August 31st, 2012
12:50 pm
*** Why does the Pope drive around in a bullet proof car?
To protect him from “enlightened” people?
*** How do you explain dinosaur bones?
Because without them, dinosaurs would have been big skin sacks.
*** Better yet, why are there so many different religions if we were all created by one god?
Free will.
me
August 31st, 2012
1:18 pm
@NAGA
The “God Particle” isn’t called that because it has anything to do with God. Calm down, boy.
Dennis
August 31st, 2012
1:42 pm
What is wrong with teaching both? One as science, the other as part of their religion? It is how I was taught, and now pass it on to my kids. What 3-6 year old can fully understand either concept anyhow?
Pieter Jordaan
August 31st, 2012
2:41 pm
@Dennis
Kids love science. Don’t hide it from them. Teach them that everything needs water and sunlight to grow.
The human race will continue to pollute our water and air until we have nothing.
When we destroy our planet, no being can help us. We need to look after it, so that we can live on.
Give your kids the knowledge to make the right decisions.
Tom
August 31st, 2012
2:55 pm
Dennis, teaching both objectively…..clearly and accurately presenting each for what it really is….would be the best thing.
But, seriously, how many parents who actually believe one of the creation myths is going to teach their kid about the paleontological origins of superstitions/religions?
Pieter Jordaan
August 31st, 2012
3:02 pm
Science and religion can co-exist, but we will need more commandments.
Do not waste.
Do not destroy the environment.
Respect other species.
Return to earth what you consume.
And for God sakes. 7 billion people is too many. Stop multiplying!
Gordon Ramsey
August 31st, 2012
3:41 pm
Well, since I have the last word here:
All you nonbelievers and atheists – PISS OFF
Bel
August 31st, 2012
7:11 pm
If we “evolved” from apes – then WHY are there still apes? – mom
Technically, humans still belong to ape family. If you meant the gorillas and the chimps, we all came from the same ape-like ancestry, but evolved differently.
Bel
August 31st, 2012
7:32 pm
http://phys.org/news/2011-02-china-aims-science.html
No wonder, China and India are kicking our butts in Science; 17th place, what a shame.
jpm5243
September 1st, 2012
3:28 am
Bel…I think the point of the question about “why are there still apes” is why haven’t they evolved into pseudo-humans? I would also ask another question…since sight is an obvious advantage, why don’t all creatures have sophisticated eyes? Why aren’t human eyes as good at seeing in the dark as, say, a cat’s eye? Surely it would be an important advantage…why didn’t it happen? And for any of our “science” friends out there…would any of you explain how, according to your theory of evolution, how eyes could spontaneously evolve in the first place? Thanks.