Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-orthodoxy-means-now dept.

Education 1774

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

cancel ×

1774 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151041)

Bill Nye is awesome.

Re:Yes! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151069)

!!! uoy kcuf

Re:Yes! (5, Insightful)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151235)

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

So which field of engineering (0, Troll)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151051)

uses the theory of evolution?

Re:So which field of engineering (4, Informative)

Jerom (96338) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151093)

bio-engineering

Re:So which field of engineering (3, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151207)

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

Re:So which field of engineering (4, Insightful)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151501)

Also, Structural engineering has evolved over time (underwent evolution)... it's not like the international build codes magically came to be a superior ultimate being.

Human residences evolved from sticks and feces-laden mud all the way to hi-grade structural steel, carbon fiber reinforced concrete, carbon fiber beams, etc. to construct buildings as tall as the imagination can take us.

Creationism's whole basis is that a supreme being (GOD) simply put things where they are now. It reinforces the notion that people are incapable of coming up with brilliant scientific discoveries and achieve scientific enlightment because things came to be from a supreme being, not from your brain.

Re:So which field of engineering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151229)

False. bio-engineering uses the process of evolution.
The process defines an observable process.
The theory applies that process and attempts to document how life became more complex.

Re:So which field of engineering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151525)

You can apply a process without understanding the origins and background, just like plenty of programmers get by fine having never tried assembly before. But those that have tried assembly before will have a better understanding of exactly what the processor is doing and hopefully see how their high level code connects to what a computer is doing. Likewise, knowing the origins of the processes for bio-engineering can give more insight into how they work, and additional sources of inspiration when it comes to improving or creating processes.

Re:So which field of engineering (3, Informative)

zerobeat (628744) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151115)

Never heard of biochemical engineering? Why is this even moded up to a score of 2 already?

Re:So which field of engineering (2, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151203)

Never heard of biochemical engineering? Why is this even moded up to a score of 2 already?

Sorry, but you only need to understand the theories of how things work "now". You only need to understand the mechanics of it all.

Re:So which field of engineering (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151131)

BioMedical

Genetic

Re:So which field of engineering (4, Insightful)

alexborges (313924) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151139)

Genetic Engineering.
Agronomy
Any zootecniques
and a long long etc.

And, ceteris paribus, we are used by evolution much more than we use her. Its just the natural order of things.

Re:So which field of engineering (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151151)

All of them.

In order to be a competent engineer, you must be capable of facing reality, even when it doesn't fit with your presuppositions. If you'd rather stick your fingers in your ear and yell "LA LA LA GODDIDIT!" then you've got no business dealing with anything that other people's lives will depend on.

Re:So which field of engineering (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151385)

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

Re:So which field of engineering (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151499)

I do not see how my belief in a creator undermines the engineering of this missile launcher I'm working on.

While your belief system may not affect the quality of your work (although I'm not suggesting that it does not), did you ever consider if your "creator" wanted you to work on a missile launcher? Which faith do you subscribe to? Is it one with an admonition like "don't kill people"?

Re:So which field of engineering (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151169)

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

Re:So which field of engineering (5, Funny)

Elric of Melnibone (2717421) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151543)

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

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

Re:So which field of engineering (5, Informative)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151177)

Computer science with genetic algorithms.

Re:So which field of engineering (4, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151181)

Or more correctly phrased: which field of engineering uses directly observable phenomenon in an objective matter to design things that will actually work?

Re:So which field of engineering (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151279)

In otherwords, you're totally and completely incapable of understanding the concept that teaching children that it's a bad idea to teach children that any science is wrong? Doesn't matter if you're telling them that evolution or physics or geology is wrong. Teaching them that any science is wrong will screw up their ability to be engineers or scientists in the future.

Re:So which field of engineering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151377)

Conservation of Energy is important to engineering. Evolution shows that living matter comes from existing chemical (and nuclear) energy, not nothing.

A "perpetual motion" machine would require created energy.

A particle's Kinetic Energy is E = mv^2, a finite value. E = mc^2 restates that as "energy in matter is proportional to the maximum speed (of light)." Suppose energy or living matter could be created. Then Kinetic Energy can go to inifinity, and Einstein's Relativity is false.

Re:So which field of engineering (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151445)

In a way, all. Engineering is built upon science, which is itself built upon observations and reasoning. To reject the sound observations and reasoning as lies undermines the scientific process altogether.

I say this as a believer in intelligent design, which is consistent with both science and God.

Re:So which field of engineering (2)

Rizimar (1986164) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151505)

You might be interested in this clip from Richard Dawkins' video "The Blind Watchmaker". [youtube.com] It shows how an evolutionary algorithm was used to develop a structure for a gas line to supply sixteen different points without any back pressure and while using the least amount of tubing possible.

Re:So which field of engineering (3, Insightful)

Howard Beale (92386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151531)

So, which field of Engineering uses the 'theory' of Creationism?

prove your memory (-1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151073)

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

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

Go!

Re:prove your memory (2, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151149)

What?

Re:prove your memory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151165)

Sorry, I don't remember the question.

Re:prove your memory (0)

wesk (2662405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151175)

Huh?

Re:prove your memory (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151195)

You're using a modified version of the solipsist argument. The answer to the solipsist argument is to shoot the solipsist in the head. Quit being a moron, and join the real world.

Re:prove your memory (-1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151227)

It's called intellectual integrity; and yours is the brownshirt response to it.

Re:prove your memory (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151401)

No, it's called philosophical bullshit.

If memory was so unreliable, all that technology around you, the development of which definitely relies on the human ability to remember, correctly interrelate, and innovate... simply wouldn't be there. Ergo, memory is incontrovertibly demonstrated to be very effective and reliable.

Here's a pro tip for you: As soon as you have to reach into the murky waters of philosophical nonsense for excuses to shore up your superstitions, you've not only jumped the shark, the shark has bitten off your genitals.

Re:prove your memory (3, Informative)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151497)

How do you know that all this technology is around you? More specifically, how do you know that everything you are looking at does what you think it does?

Also, if philosophy is bullshit then we might as well crawl back to ~C4 BC and start again. This is why there are rarely any bright individuals in computer engineering classes: they simply don't see the value of any learning beyond how electricity works.

Re:prove your memory (1)

wesk (2662405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151493)

Let me consult my dictionary and get back to you

Re:prove your memory (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151305)

No it isn't. There is no assumption or conclusion that some aspect of the world may not exist. One can say "I think therefore everything is" without concluding that "I think therefore everything was".

But the motivation was the fact that the submitter has obviously completely forgotten what the article said in writing the summary, erecting another Dwakins-like strawman/windmill to fence with.

Re:prove your memory (5, Insightful)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151319)

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

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

Go!

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

Re:prove your memory (-1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151367)

You trust your memory to remember that it has earned trust.

Try again.

Re:prove your memory (1)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151527)

Lemme guess, this is one of those "there's no right answer except goddidit" bullshit-pseudophilosophical puzzles?

Re:prove your memory (3, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151533)

Reductio ad absurdum. You can only regress faith so far before you have to accept faith as faith. There are no solid foundations, except for the ones you find and accept for yourself.

Re:prove your memory (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151435)

Faith may not be earned, but can *definitely* be subject to review.

Re:prove your memory (1)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151489)

You are equating faith with belief. Faith in most Christian settings incorporates belief with fiducia (trust).

Re:prove your memory (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151337)

Try David Hume's The Problem with Induction. The conclusion is that there is no reason whatsoever to trust inductive reasoning since it requires inductive reasoning to justify itself and thus begs the question. You can go on an say that since science is based on induction that there is no reason whatsoever to trust science.

What it really comes down to is whether you axiomatically accept induction as a valid method of proof or you run into a wall based on your own existence.

An alternate method of your argument is to prove that the universe didn't start just one second ago with a creator making the universe and setting all of the velocities, potentials, etc (or the Universe was created 6000 years ago and God just liked to hide dinosaur bones and ancient rocks for some reason). Or even better consider that the universe is just one frame and time does not exist.

My suggestion, don't waste your time on this. It is a good philosophical question, but if you plan to live in the real world then you are going to have to accept induction and science even though the logic to do so is tough.

Re:prove your memory (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151431)

Yeah, I know - but thank you for the good response. I was just poking fun at the submitter for having seemingly completely forgotten what the article he was summarising was actually about.

Re:prove your memory (2)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151461)

I would, but you should prove first that you exist at all (as opposed to being a figment of my brain). When you fail that, kindly remove yourself from existence.

Relevant Slashdot Ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151079)

George Fox Evangelical Seminary

No, he didn't. (4, Informative)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151083)

Bill Nye said kids shouldn't be taught that certain scientific theories are wrong. He never even said creationism, once.

This headline is just sensationalist garbage.

Yes, that is exactly what he says. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151285)

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

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

Re:No, he didn't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151363)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implies

Translation for the "Normal Guy" (5, Insightful)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151107)

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

Re:Translation for the "Normal Guy" (0)

wesk (2662405) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151261)

Seems like you have it backwards. Creationists are unwilling to accept ideas backed by scientific methods that don't agree with what they were taught to believe.

Re:Translation for the "Normal Guy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151483)

He was translating Bill Nye's statement and attributing it to him, not making a statement to Bill Nye. He hasn't got anything backwards, he's just using "Script style" attribution (as you would see in the script for a play or movie), replacing the word "said" with a :

Re:Translation for the "Normal Guy" (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151391)

So you're saying the earth was created in 7 days and is 10,000 years old.

Re:Translation for the "Normal Guy" (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151503)

One is compelled to wonder why it is acceptable for him to implore such a thing, while at the same time condoning said parents' continued attitudes? This seems sort of self-contradictory to me. If one is not okay, why is the other, or vice versa?

He's right (3, Insightful)

danbuter (2019760) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151111)

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

Re:He's right (5, Interesting)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151365)

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

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

Re:He's right (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151383)

It's not like everyone else hasn't gone through this either. We spent the better part of 100 years with the majority of people believing in creationism in all of the developed countries. Trying to overcome the entrenched beliefs of politicians is not particularly easy, the US system is especially bad, but this is a problem other places managed to solve eventually.

Re:He's right (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151427)

Meanwhile, the third parties are trying to fix this. Yet intelligent people keep voting for the major parties...

Unfortunately... (5, Insightful)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151117)

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

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151495)

It would help if he had a point to begin with.

We need voters that don't fall for deception, we need voters that vote for the interests of the community instead of the lies of their masters. We need voters that make nilly-willy war impossible. We need voters that put banks in their place. We need voters that put all sorts of abuses of authority to a stop. And so on, this list isn't meant to be complete or correct in any way.

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." -- Aesop

^ So we need voters to do it the other way around. And guess what? Evolution or Creationism both have ZERO bearing on that. It's a red herring, and who parades those is my enemy.

So what point is he making? "we need engineers, but only for a little while, until they built good enough robots" -- ?

All that bullshit circular backpatting by mediocre people, I'm fucking sick of it.

Not so sunny (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151125)

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

Re:Not so sunny (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151197)

wow them with the fact there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand in all the beaches of earth.

Re:Not so sunny (5, Funny)

zerobeat (628744) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151263)

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

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

Re:Not so sunny (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151539)

You hang around idiots.

1+1=3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151143)

My parents are catholic (practicioners). I'm an atheist despite they doing everything they could to make a believer. I'm also an engineer.

Re:1+1=3 (5, Informative)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151257)

mu.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach Creationism.

Re:1+1=3 (3, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151281)

Catholicism officially recognizes evolution to be correct. They're still having trouble with realizing there isn't a god, but you can see why that one is a bit harder for them.

Re:1+1=3 (1)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151529)

The Catholic Church recognizes that evolution may be one correct way of understanding how life works on earth. Unless something has come out in recent years making a more dogmatic stance, it does not explicitly uphold evolution. Whatever the case may be, there are a number of Christians (Catholic or otherwise) who hold to some form of gradual development (be it through theistic evolution [including some forms of intelligent design] or a gradual development followed by disaster followed by the traditional six day creation as recreation). In both of these cases, "creationism" could still be held to apply to their belief system and yet not fall under the critique of Bill Nye's statement (this statement at least).

Evolution just isn't that relevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151155)

Knowledge of the mechanisms of natural selection, the fossil record, and the tree of life isn't very useful in most fields.
When do "engineers that can build stuff, solve problems" ever use any of that?

Re:Evolution just isn't that relevant (3, Informative)

zerobeat (628744) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151355)

Well, engineers that solve problems in biological systems will use 'that'. But there is an additional problem with your comment. An engineer that accepts electrons can move through a metallic conductor when a voltage is applied because the evidence says so, but refuses to believe evolution despite the overwhelming evidence that it is true, is an engineer acting on faulty principles.

No, I don't trust them.

Re:Evolution just isn't that relevant (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151393)

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

killjoy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151171)

Why do you tell? Let it happen! Please! I want to see a whole country go bancrupt. Please!

Fine America. (4, Insightful)

MnemonicMan (2596371) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151185)

Fine. You go America. We'll just see what the power map of the world is fifty years from now once your post-awesome country is filled with idiots and therefore of no relevance in that world.

But. I would rather you did turn yourselves around as, even with your bad stuff, I think you're generally OK.

Don't have to believe in evolution to build stuff (3, Insightful)

slapout (93640) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151201)

"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"

Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"

Re:Don't have to believe in evolution to build stu (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151541)

Even people who don't believe in evolution can still become engineers who "build stuff, solve problems"

"Sir, your foreman reports a large crack in the bridge."
"My belief system denies the existence of frangible bridges. It is safe."

Engineers who are willing to let political, religious, or ideological beliefs prevent them from drawing logical conclusions from observed data don't build things and solve problems: they destroy things and kill people.

If you want a real-world example?

"Sir, your engineers report that it is unsafe to launch the shuttle when it's this cold. The O-rings will crack."
"Underling, my political sponsor requires that a Teacher needs to be in Space because his boss's State of the Union speech won't sound as good if we delay the launch. It's worked before. Launch the shuttle."

In the case of Challenger, it was engineers trying to report their observations, and being overriden by management that was more interested in the politics/optics of a situation, but the same principle applies.

If an engineer is willing to reject the conclusions derived from following the scientific method in biology class, how can I, driving over his bridge, trust that he didn't also reject its results in metallurgy class?

you can have both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151209)

Evolution and God/Creationism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Teach Children what you believe in your home, and teach them that other people believe other things. Regardless of your religion you can and SHOULD teach good scientific principles, the scientific method, proper observation, mathmatics and critical thinking skills are all things we need (like Bill said) there is nothing about religion that should prohibit a home from teaching God and all of those things.

Why are we still talking about this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151219)

Can't you believe in God and evolution at the same time? I don't see why it's so hard. I am a Christian and I believe that God created the Earth, sun, planets, and the universe. But I don't think he literally did it in a week. Why can't we just agree that Genesis uses story-telling devices create a kind of "establishing shot" for Judaism/Christianity and get on with the more important parts of our lives.... like being kind to one another?

Re:Why are we still talking about this? (3, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151409)

Scientists and rational beings can. Religious zealots and irrational beings can't.

Did you hear about the 17 people beheaded by the Taliban for the crime of 'mingling'? And you expect the zealots to even have a rational conversation about evolution?

Not going to happen.

Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (-1, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151243)

I will teach my kids whatever I want to teach them. I am sick of tyrants bossing me around as if I was one of my ancestors. - Furthermore: Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor. Many scientists over the years have believed in God or a god, even as they were unravelling the mystery of evolution and cosmology.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (3, Insightful)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151361)

There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher power, but scientifically, there's no use either.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151417)

There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher powe

there is when you use that belief to impose upon other people's lives with it.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151389)

believe in a creator makes ALL KINDS of problems. mentally, you are weaker when you think 'magic works!'.

essentially, religion is a statement that 'OUR magic works, theirs does not'.

you want kids growing up thinking that?

oh, wait, we already do that. and just LOOK at all the great minds we have in the US, these days (rolls eyes).

the world laughs at us. I hate that. I wish we could eliminate religion. we, as a people, would grow up SO MUCH if we let go of bronze age fairy tales and started to accept the world for how it really is and not how some sheep hearder told us to be.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151477)

Nye's point isn't that people shouldn't believe in gods, but that they shouldn't shove demonstrably false beliefs about the world down the throats of unsuspecting kids. Yes, many great scientists were and are religious, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is teaching children that there were dinosaurs in Noah's Ark, or that there even was a Noah's Ark at all, because that is objectively false, misleading, counterproductive and, frankly, very stupid.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151487)

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe he ever denied God. He preached against people teaching their children to reject the scientific process. His statements are congruent with yours.

Re:Bill Nye..... I'm not your serf (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151511)

Yes! Stand up for ignorance!

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

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

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

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

Belief in a creator does not negate thescientific endeavor.

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

You don't have to believe in evolution to ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151267)

Design/build a bridge, building, microprocessor, software, chemical plant, airplane, ... you get the picture (and do it well).

Take it Home (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151273)

What Bill Nye is really talking about, without saying it outright, is religion in general. He is calling out indoctrination by catechism [wikipedia.org] .

More apt is panel #4 of this cartoon [theoatmeal.com] .

This is a fundamental aspect of many religions and is most commonly associated with Catholicism, though is also popular in many evangelical Christian churches.

  -chill-

Ignorance.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151275)

His statements are just about as ignorant as the people he is criticising. No wonder his greatest accomplishment was being a kids' show host.

Old News (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151303)

I'm really perplexed with Slashdot. This article came out yesterday morning. It's been all over the news for the last 24 - 36 hours and we're only seeing it on /. now?

And is it really a topic for /.?

Wait for the outcry (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151317)

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

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

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

Literalness interferes w/ understanding Bible, &am (4, Insightful)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151351)

Part of an old post:

People who believe in the literal Word of God as the Bible remind me of the grand-daughter of a family friend --- he was a woodworker, old school, wanted me to be his apprentice so he could put me to work re-sawing wood rather than purchase a band saw. He made a cradle as a gift for the grand-daughter in question, for her to keep her dolls in --- she was very impressed when her mother told her, ``Your grandfather made this by hand.'' and immediately evinced a desire to see him and to see his shop and to watch him make something. The visit was arranged and upon arrival, the young lady was taken out to the shop and the large door rolled open, revealing rack upon rack of chisels, saws, hand planes, a simply unbelievable quantity of clamps and other hand tools --- the girl let out a shriek such as only a 5 year old girl can and yelled, ``Mommy! You lied! Grandpa doesn't make things by hand! He uses tools!''.

God is quite capable of using DNA and RNA and quantum mechanics and other theories which we have yet to learn about to make people and the world.

Moreover, those who believe that humanity is incapable of learning how God works are being blasphemous and not remembering the lesson of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:6) which indicates that humanity's learning capacity is without limit.

Believing in God doesn't mandate a belief in Creationism (though believing in Creationism requires the belief in God). Anyone whose faith is so fragile that it could be damaged by a rigorous class in evolutionary biology should go back to CCD or Sunday School or whatever their faith's equivalent is.

William

Darwinism is Survival of the Fittest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151381)

Adapt or Perish Mr. Nye.

Contrast
    Let there Be Light
With
    All of a sudden there was a big bang.

Ya, that really clears things up.

I can't be the only one bothered by the title. (4, Informative)

schitso (2541028) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151395)

Bill "The Science Guy" Nye? No no no. It's "Bill Nye The Science Guy"! (Billlll Nyeeee the Scienceee Guyyy.)

Re:I can't be the only one bothered by the title. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151545)

Bill! BIll! BIll! Bill!

Big Bang & Primordial Goo? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151423)

First there was nothing! And then it exploded! Then there was the primordial goo and it came to life! After that there came the first microbe and then, after a long long long long long long time it became a Wall Street stock trader or a politician. Is this what should be taught to our children and called science?

Morgus and Chopsie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151441)

Bill won't ever amount to anything as a scientist.
Now Dr Morgus, look at what he's done. Why I be he's headed for dry ground right now.
Let's see Bill turn New Orleans into the Aquarium of the Americas, higher order indeed, Bill doesn't even know the secret symbol.

An ascientific position.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151453)

If the man was serious he would ask parents to teach their children to be rational beings -- not to blindly accept whatever theory he find politically convenient at the moment.

There is no theory that should simply, at face value, be or not be accepted -- the facts tell you which ones to believe and which ones to reject. That is science.

Mr. Nye has confused his politics and his profession.

overheard on a radio talk show (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151475)

(Just a morning talk show on a music station, not some sort of bible-thumping show. It was just a random topic that went by)

DJ: "If evolution is true, then how come chimps don't evolve into people... any more?"

And that is what passes for scientific debate here in the You Ess Aye.

Don't necessarily have to believe Darwin (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41151509)

I don't think it's necessary to believe Darwinian evolution as the origin of the species to be a successful scientist. It is possible to "believe" in the observed existence of mutations and natural selection - the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, moths changing from white to black to white as the environment gets dirty and then cleans up - and still believe that the origins of the human species were other than random.

I think it's hard to simultaneously be a scientist and a young earth creationist, although I suppose you can hold the view that God created the universe 6000 years ago to exactly mimic a 14 billion-year-old expanding universe, and that everything we measure about the universe is consistent with a 14 billion year age because God is really smart. But given that that universe is indistinguishable from one which is actually 14 billion years old, you're also happy to believe all of astrophysics models the universe correctly, because you know God made a perfect fake.

Personally, I don't see a conflict (3, Insightful)

grylnsmn (460178) | more than 2 years ago | (#41151547)

I'll probably get modded down for this, but personally, I don't see a conflict between Creationism and Evolution. Are there forms of Creationism that can conflict? Sure, but that doesn't mean that the two are completely irreconcilable.

For example, if you look at the creation account in Genesis, and take into account that the word that translates as "Day" can also mean "period of time", "Age", or "epoch", and not necessarily a defined period of time, then you can easily interpret it as mirroring what science tells us about how the Earth was formed and life evolved.

Consider, that we started off with a massive release of energy, then the solar system coalesced from a cloud of dust and gas. As the Earth formed, vapors condensed into liquids, the land cooled and solidified, and the sky cleared (making the sun, moon, and stars visible). Plants developed, and then animals of increasing complexity developed, culminating in Man.

Tradition has it that the book of Genesis was written by Moses, who learned of the Creation directly from God. If you consider the level of understanding that would have been available in his time (Rabbinical tradition holds as being around 1300 BCE), the descriptions in Genesis are a rather good description of what modern-day science thinks on the subject today.

The important thing is to keep each subject in context. Moses wasn't concerned about describing the details of how life was created. For his account all that was necessary is to describe that it was created.

It's not necessary to pick one or the other. You can provide a balanced view of both sides to you children. I know my very-religious physicist parents did.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?