As a child of the 1990s who grew up watching Bill Nye the Science Guy, this story pretty much made my day:
In a clip posted to online knowledge forum Big Think via YouTube, former children’s show host Bill Nye spoke out against the denial of evolution, saying such views harm young people especially and hamper scientific progress.
In the video, which you can watch below, Nye doesn’t mince words about evolution deniers and so-called “Creationists,” saying that they “live in [a] world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe.” He also calls evolution denialism a phenomenon unique to the United States and says that, although America is a nation possessing intellectual capital and a “general understanding of science,” the refusal of a segment of the population to acknowledge evolution holds us back as a nation.
Nye continues:
“Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they’re at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.”
He closes with a plea to adults not to allow their children to be held back by their parents’ ignorance:
“. . .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.”
It’s wonderful to see beloved childhood figures like Bill Nye standing up and speaking out for science, logic, and reason, in defiance of religiously-motivated extremism. Here’s hoping that in the future, Nye expands the scope of his remarks even further to include not just evolution deniers, but climate-change deniers and proponents of quack “pray away the gay” therapy. After all, none of these — denying the existence of human-made global warming, refusing to acknowledge the reality of evolution, and believing that people choose their sexual orientation and can “pray away the gay” — have any basis in scientific fact whatsoever, and people holding any or all of these views can cause great harm to themselves, their loved ones, and our world.
Fine. But I don’t find the comments much different than religions taking scientists to task for not bowing to the mystery beyond the bounds of science.
Even if evolutionary theories prove to be 100% correct–in the year 12023 (or 2101) we will look back at 2012 and snicker at how much we thought we had figured out. Present day scientists will be viewed as 15th century flat earthers.
Religion and science provide two pathways of exploration that actually go side-by-side quite nicely. I’m never very excited when someone on either side stands up to lecture the other as to their ignorance.
The difference Melinda, is that one side fits its explanation to the evidence while the other fits the evidence to the eplanation. We are totally justified in lecturing religious fundamentalists for their ignorance because it is a willful ignorance. They have to actively ignore what’s staring them in the face to justify their dogma. Why are you so obsessed with everything having two equal sides?
Melinda said “Even if evolutionary theories prove to be 100% correct–in the year 12023 (or 2101) we will look back at 2012 and snicker at how much we thought we had figured out. Present day scientists will be viewed as 15th century flat earthers.”.
No they won’t. Unlike the flat earthers present day scientists don’t insist wild guesses about the nature of the world are fact, they only recognize as fact things for which there is overwhelming evidence.
Melinda said “Religion and science provide two pathways of exploration that actually go side-by-side quite nicely.”.
Nonsense. Religion has never successfully explained any aspect of nature, whereas science has again and again given solid evidence based reasons for why things are the way they are. Religion has never resulted in any medical, scientific, or mechanical benefit to humanity, only science has done that.
To suggest there is any equivalence between what science tells us about the world and what religion tells us about the world is not just wishful thinking, its profoundly absurd.
“Religion has never resulted in any medical, scientific, or mechanical benefit to humanity, only science has done that”. That’s not religion’s job any more than it’s the job of art or music to explain the workings of the physical universe and when religion tries to that, they have overstepped their bounds.
Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein
Gary, that’s a nice sentiment, but incorrect. Religion was created to try and explain the world around us BEFORE WE HAD SCIENCE. Now it’s used primarily to exclude people: and it’s unhelpful at best and deadly at worst. Einstein was brilliant, but he wasn’t right about everything.
Melinda, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
When the theory was first proposed by Darwin it was just that – a theory (albeit with plenty of evidence supporting this theory – remember this was a pretty radical point of view at the time, and Darwin was not about to release ‘Origin of Species’ without gathering all the information that he could lay his hands on.), However as time has passed all of the evidence gathered since supports this theory, and with the massive advances in molecular biology, and in particular within the field of genetics, the theory of evolution can be said to have been proven 99.999% correct (nothing is ever 100% in science, or anything else for that matter.).
However, religion is not based upon evidence. It is based upon faith, belief. It would not be religion otherwise. There is no objective proof for the existence of a deity (there is even doubt as to the existence of a historical figure known as Jesus Christ).
If someone in the scientific community proposed a theory and used as evidence some 2000 year old text written by anonymous individuals or attributed to authors living at least 80 years after the events written about took place, they would be ostracised and lumped in with fringe conspiracy theorists like David Icke or Eric Von Danniken.
As Priya so eloquently put it in a post above, to equate the two is patently absurd.
ZnSD, explaining nature WAS one of it’s functions as well as giving life meaning and trying to get people to behave in a moral manner (at least Judaism and Buddhism did that) and I must take umbrage with your assertion that we ALL exclude people and do NO GOOD! My church includes EVERYONE and we run soup kitchens, food cupboards, homeless shelters, have started an inner city school in an abandoned church in which the kids are excelling academically and we also run a FREE clinic for poor people which is staffed by volunteer nurses and physicians. We have also gotten furnished housing for a number of homeless families.
And Einstein wasn’t and isn’t the only scientist who has some type of spiritual beliefs about the nature and meaning of the universe.
Gary said “Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein”.
Gary, I always find it hilarious when religious people take Einstein’s quote out of context and pretend he’s one of their own. When Einstein spoke of god and religion he wasn’t speaking of a deity having direct involvement with human matters, he was referring to his appreciation of the wonder and beauty of nature. It amazes me that christians repeat such quotes and yet seem somehow unaware that Einstein was loudly an atheist.
“I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”- Albert Einstein,
– Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein’s question “Do you believe in God?”
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”.- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954)
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” Albert Einstein “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930
I hope in the future you won’t use quotes such as you have to try and pass on the lie that Einstein was a religious believer.
“Why do you write to me “God should punish the English”? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.”. Albert Einstein — Letter to Edgar Meyer colleague January 2, 1915
“Why are you so obsessed with everything having two equal sides?” RPhoenix
I’m not. Only note that pots have a habit of calling kettles black.
My comment was not aimed at evolutionary theory–but at the bounds of evolutionary theory and of science. Bill Nye’s comments describe a world fully comprehended outside the need to clean up and explain a few loose ends. This is the arrogance of an ant climbing out of its hole and explaining the physics of the universe. Giving religion, art, the humanities broad ranges of reality to explore does not diminish science. To elevate science or religion to god ultimately erodes their value.
Melinda, if you’re not obsessed with everything having two equal sides, than why does every one of your comments boil down to, “well the other side does it too”?
Bill Nye’s comments describe the need to properly educate people instead of trying to indoctrinate them with religious dogma. The arrogance is from creationists and people like you who insist that their ideas are somehow valid. Religion, art, and the humanities have their places, but it is not even close to the same place as science and it’s past time for apologists like you to stop trying to make them out to be equals.
“Why are you so obsessed with everything having two equal sides?” RPhoenix
Melinda said “I’m not. Only note that pots have a habit of calling kettles black.”.
You just falsely suggested everything has two equal sides again. There is no equivalence (or pot/kettle) between the statments of science and those of religion. One is evidence supported and one is made despite all evidence to the contrary.
Melinda said My comment was not aimed at evolutionary theory–but at the bounds of evolutionary theory and of science. Bill Nye’s comments describe a world fully comprehended outside the need to clean up and explain a few loose ends.”.
Nonsense, he did no such thing. His statments were limited to only what is known based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it. Bill would be the first to acknowledge there is far more science doesn’t know than what it does know.
Melinda said “This is the arrogance of an ant climbing out of its hole and explaining the physics of the universe.”.
Nonsense. Science has not made any truth claims about anything it doesn’t have overwhelming evidence for, science has most certainly not claimed to know the physics of the entire universe.
Melinda said “Giving religion, art, the humanities broad ranges of reality to explore does not diminish science.”.
Religion has been and continues to be used to dismiss what are well settled facts of science – evolution, global warming, the age of the planet and so on. Even today religionists argue that the latest mars probe shouldn’t have been sent as religion assures us its impossible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe.
Religion has never provided any insight into reality, it has only given erroneous explanations for natural processes. There is no aspect of reality for which religion or art is a useful exploration tool. The humanities can explore reality only to the degree which they rely on rational thinking and science to draw conclusions.
Has anyone else heard of “theistic evolution” (I believe that’s what it’s called)? If God exists (and I believe he does), then he could create life and then “let nature take its course”, so to speak. He could have caused the big bang, he could have caused the lightning to strike the one-celled organism that started life… If God exists, and if he is all-powerful as Christians say, then he can do anything he wants.
I don’t believe that religion says that life on other planets is impossible. If God created life on Earth, then he could just as easily have created life elsewhere in the universe. Just because we’ve discovered little evidence for that fact (certainly we’ve never spoken to an alien), that doesn’t “prove” anything. (I’ve been beaten about the head and shoulders about using “science” and “proof” in the same breath, lol.)
There is so much about our universe that can’t be explained. I prefer to believe that there’s an order to the universe and to life rather than it being a series of random “accidents”.
Glenna, the thing about “theistic evolution”–while it isn’t out of the question, there is no proof. You can believe it if you wish but there is no evidence that there was a “god” that started the process so it’s still an argument based on ignorance. Saying “we don’t know what caused this so it must have been God”. And we haven’t discovered “little” evidence of that–we’ve discovered no evidence of that. Also, there is no reason to believe that the only explanations are “random accidents” or “god did it.”
Glenna said “I don’t believe that religion says that life on other planets is impossible.”.
Many religious people agree with you. However some religious people believe religion unconditionally says life on other planets is impossible:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/06/can-we-send-them-to-mars/
Glenna, have you ever heard of Occam’s razor? Its a statement that the explanation for a phenomenon that contains the fewest steps, the simplist explanation is usually the right one. If we accept the idea that evolution occurrs, a god starting it in motion is a more complicated explanation than it occurred on its own, a god doing it is an extra step, not the simplist explanation and therefore an explanation we should be highly skeptical of.