The Creation Museum Responds to Bill Nye the Science Guy

Bill Nye recently made a wonderful video for Big Think in which he talked about why it was so important to accept evolution:

That video has received over 2,400,000 views as of this writing.

Now, the Creation Museum has made a response video.

Ken Ham prefaces it like this:

We are [responding to Nye] today with a video rebuttal featuring our “science guys” — Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom of our AiG and Creation Museum staff. These two PhD scientists were asked to reply to Mr. Nye, whose academic credentials do not come close to Drs. Menton and Purdom.

Never has a PhD mattered less.

Bill Nye has obviously done more for science education than the Creation Museum staff ever will, but they’re going to do whatever they can to indoctrinate people with nonsense because questioning a literal interpretation of the Bible isn’t an option for them:

Their entire argument goes as follows:

Menton: Creationists have brainwashed people in other countries, so there must be something to it!

Purdom: I teach my daughter evolution so she can weigh the evidence for herself! And you know I present it accurately.

Menton: Bill Nye said the world gets complicated if you don’t accept science… But learning more science hurts my head! So it must be false.

Purdom: We can’t see evolution happening right in front of our eyes, so why trust scientists who think they know how we were created? Trust the Bible!

Menton: Bill Nye says evolution is fundamental to all branches of science, but not all scientists have to know evolution to work in their fields… so why should we bother with it?!

Of course, like Ken Ham’s post, they’ve disabled comments on the video so that no one can embarrass the Creationists by presenting so-called “facts” and “evidence”…

But that doesn’t mean you can’t rip up their arguments on this website and everywhere else.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • John Small Berries

    Purdom: We can’t see evolution happening right in front
    of our eyes, so why trust scientists who think they know how we were
    created? Trust the Bible!

    But we can’t see Creation happening right in front of our eyes either – so if that’s a reason to distrust scientists, it’s also reason to distrust the Bible. So I guess we’ll just have to go with evidence instead of ocular organs which any stage magician can easily demonstrate are quite fallible.

    • SwedishLore15

      “But we can’t see evolution” is literally one of the most moronic things I have ever heard, not to mention entirely untrue.  You make a good point in countering that, if what they say is true, it is equally true that we can’t see God or his “Creation” either.  Of course, tell someone who supports Creationism this and they will say that “But you can see God’s work!  Look around you!”, usually by pointing out a beautiful landscape.

      “Don’t trust the scientists who think they know how we were created, but trust us when we say how we were treated, because BIBLE” is even funnier, though.

      • DocAZ

        Yes, usually by pointing out a beautiful landscape. Funny how creationists never point out a pile of dung, a rotting animal corpse, an “ugly” insect, etc., but science doesn’t ignore these things and helps us to understand them in interesting ways.

        • Pascale Laviolette

          Yes – EXACTLY!  The whole world makes complete sense when you understand evolution, and it’s so BEAUTIFUL because the explanation means we are all connected.

          I can’t imagine how confused creationists must be about all of the contradictions, although I suppose their minds are expert at quickly changing the subject before critical analysis kicks in…

          • Launabanauna

            Their minds are so twisted and confused by them forcing their own brains to ignore facts, that they are making themselves crazier and crazier each time they ignore what little common sense they have left or ever had to begin with.

        • Launabanauna

          YOUR response is my favorite for the day DocAZ! 

          AH HA HA HA HA….too funny, cause it’s so true!

      • Roscocavalier1

        You are the moron!

    • kenneth

      Anyone who claims to be a molecular biologist who says something like that should have their degree revoked. That is an admission that she knows absolutely nothing about the work she supposedly did for her doctorate or any of the classes leading up to that. 

      • Aubrey

        One kid in my bio class said during lecture, “All this stuff just makes God more amazing. God is science.” The professor told him to get him a peer-reviewed article stating that. I lol’d.

    • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

      Plus we can actually see evolution occur.  See the Lenski experiments, or examine ring species, or look at the nested sets within molecular genetic, or … etc

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=665584920 Scott Macauley

        Or the fact that insects can become immune to certain pesticides within a few generations.  Dawkins mentions it in one of his books.  It’s evolution you can see happening literally before your eyes.  When you can observe it both in nature and in a controlled lab setting, the validity of it increases a thousandfold.  People who are willfully ignorant, however, will almost always remain that way for the entirety of their lives.

        • Roscocavalier1

          Scott, immunity to pesticides is a great example of evolution, microevolution, that is. The capability of species to adapt has been well documented. However, this is a far stretch to changing to a different species! For classical Darwinian evolution (macroevolution) to be true the insect would have to become an entirely different species, let’s say a higher formed more complex animal like a frog, then you work up to humans…..sorry not possible!. If you don’t believe in God, that’s one thing, but to call evolutionary theory fact and good science is ignorance. Doesn’t anyone on this blog know anything about science? Definition of science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Key words are observation and experimentation.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Go observe some endogenous retroviruses.

          • RT33

            So Creationist rules are being changed from “We don’t believe in evolution at all!” to “We don’t believe in evolution! Except microevolution…..because we were wrong about that..”

             It’s only a matter of time before they just give in.

          • RT33

            AND just to let you know, evolution BEGINS with microevolution! It takes baby steps for species to evolve. And it’s not like  turtles magically become giraffes.

        • Christian Haynes

          How does an insect becoming immune to a pesticide explain single-celled orangutans eventually “evolving” into humans? The insects’ immunity to pesticides argument is a favorite among evolutionists. But no matter how many pesticides these insects develop a tolerance for, they will still always, always, always be insects & nothing more.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            But no matter how many pesticides these insects develop a tolerance for, they will still always, always, always be insects & nothing more.

            How do you know?

        • Michael

          Okay, I totally agree with you here, but your comment is actually not in support of evolution. When bacteria develop immunity to a antibiotic within a few generations, they never (at least not that I have seen so far) develop some novel new immunity. It would be really awesome if they did! They just turn on genes for immunity that had been sitting dormant for a number of generations or they end up producing additional copies of genes that had previously coded for a mechanism for immunity. I have a feeling that something similar is going on in these insects. Now macroscopic evolution is definitely obvious, you just have to look at the macro scale. Look at the similarities/subtle difference between the lungs of fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals. You can’t miss the progression.

      • Roscocavalier1

        The Lenski bacteria are still bacteria, just as Darwin’s Finches are still birds! Neither of these changed into something different. Try looking at the theory of irreducible complexity. Check out the Bombardier Beetle or bacterial flagellum. Neither could have evolved slowly because they would have not survived.

        • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

          What did you expect? An armadillo to leap from colony of bacteria? You *do* understand that you cannot escape your parents, so bacteria will always produce bacteria and bird will always produce birds, right? You may be thinking this is counter to evolutionary theory and more inline with “shall produce after their ‘kind’”, however offspring vary between each other and over generations.  Those individuals with traits and characteristics which grant them a survival advantage over their competitors will be more successful at surviving and breeding.  Over many generations these small changes build into large ones, producing new subspecies as the process continues.  Look up “ring species” for examples of species who can breed with their neighbors (smae species), but not with those at each end of the line (different species).

    • Al

      The sun going down and temperatures are getting lower! Therefore global warming doesn’t exist!!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/L3WX764JC52T5UAMUYCRKEPGOA cararacs

      We actually can see evolution happen right in front of us:

      Bacteria, viruses, bird speciation, reptilian speciation, eukaryotic cellular evolution, plant speciation, adaptive survival, fish speciation….all this stuff documented within a life time. If you know nothing of a subject and refuse to read about the evidence and papers written on it then you cannot speak about it and all you can really say “I choose not to read about evolution or learn about it, I choose to stay ignorant and uneducated.”

      • Shoulton39

        Likewise for creation.  If the “unbiased” would honestly research both subjects, they would find that CREATION fits the facts on the ground much closer than EVOLUTION theory.  But it is easier to just believe one’s teachers.    For most of the past century teachers themselves have been taught to BELIEVE and TEACH evolution, without asking any hard questions about it.  The result is that most educated people believe in evolution BECAUSE they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution.  Sad.

        • Meetatheism

           Just like those silly people are taught to read! They think that “sh” makes that hushy hushy sound but that is only because they were taught that. If they really looked at the evidence they would learn that in the English language it makes the…..oh….wait….I get it! They LEARN about how written language works just like they LEARN about science and LEARN about evolution and biology and LEARN about math. They LEARN about atoms and molecules and physics and physiology and geology and all that stuff!

          We know so much because we continue to ask THE HARD QUESTIONS and continue to demand EVIDENCE.  Creationists don’t LEARN they assume. They don’t demand evidence they demand faith. They don’t desire to LEARN they desire to pretend that the world fits their tiny little idea about a make believe spirit in the sky.

          • Roscocavalier1

            It takes more faith to be an atheist! Everything around us happened by chance? The TRUTH is there is NO scientific evidence that proves classical Darwinian evolution is true. Besides, it’s a THEORY! Science is limited to what we can see and observe. Only God was there!

            • John Smith

              1. In Scientific terms a “Theory” is about as high as it gets.

              2. Charles Darwin spent years gathering evidence supporting his claims.

              3. Prove that there is a god, that jesus wasn’t some random guy that claimed things or a complete looney.

              • AlanR

                Hi John,
                In science, a “theory” may be pretty top shelf, but it is still just a theory.  Where is the real proof, and I’m not talking about corresponding evidence! I want proof…cited articles, youtube, etc…

                Charles Darwin may have spent many years doing his research, but the Catholic Church has been doing her’s for many centuries.

                There is proof that God exists.  I can provide it if you want.  Jesus of Nazareth really walked the earth.  Not believing in God is a choice.

                Whats up with capitalizing “theory” but not God or the name of Jesus?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  You mean the Catholic Church that accepts evolution?  You mean Catholics like Ken Miller?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

                  Believing in God has nothing to do with evolution.  All the Catholics I know believe in evolution, and most of the Catholic clergy does as well.  Evolution only conflicts with theology is when you try to reconcile the observed world (as I mentioned elsewhere, look up ‘endogenous retroviruses’) with a literal interpretation of the bible.

            • Roscoiswack

              1. It takes faith to be an atheist? Well then my “faith” then is underpinned with evidence underpinned with tentative scientific logic to lead up to my conclusions. Yours is traced back to a book written 2,000 years ago in an illiterate part of the Middle East by people that believed in talking snakes.
              2. Yes, evolution is an accepted theory among the scientific community. What that means is that it is a hypothesis that has been tested and confirmed accounting for known facts, observations, and evidence. You are mixing the word “theory” up with a hypothesis which is a mere conjecture.

              3. Science is not limited to just direct observation. For example, even with our most sophisticated telescopes out in space, no one can actually “witness” the Earth revolving around the sun. But we know from indirect observations that it in fact does. Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. It has been tested, has practical applications to medicine, agriculture, industry etc.

              Even if evolution were complete nonsense and was an invalid scientific theory, that would hand absolutely NO proof on your side that a Jew god (or any other god) exists who fancies a 6,000 year old earth and cares about who you jack off to and who you sleep with and will punish you forever for it.

              Instead of going out of your way attacking credible mainstream scientific facts, you should apply critical thinking to your religion.

            • Spuddie

              The only thing you have proven is your religious belief is based on personal stupidity.

              Thinking is just too hard, so God becomes your default answer for your own lack of willingness to think hard or to find things out for yourself.

        • Spuddie

          “If the “unbiased” would honestly research both subjects, they would find that CREATION fits the facts on the ground much closer than EVOLUTION theory.”

          Bullshit.

          Creationists never do research which was anything other than fraud. Creation fits nothing. It is not science, it is shitty religion as well. Its for people who are too immature to understand parable and feel the need to inject God into anything remotely complicated to their thought processes.

          Creationism posits the idea that your religious faith is unnecessary to believe in God. You come up with phony evidence and specious arguments to deny the purpose of faith in order to convince others. Allegedly that evidence would prove the existence of God in an objective and credible manner. No faith required!

          But in reality it is dishonesty incarnate since no Creationist really denies their faith privately or is even concerned with the evidence or arguments they tell others. Any argument used, any lie told, anything which can be thrown out there is done to “prove” to others that one’s religious belief has to be taken seriously.

          No creationist can ever be considered credible because their view REQUIRES lying in public about their own religious belief. It is a deeply immoral POV.

      • Roscocavalier1

        The fossil record does NOT show macrevolution! Microevolution is definitely true. Small changes to species, but I challenge anyone to produce an intermediary species.

    • http://twitter.com/RosaRubicondior Rosa Rubicondior

      Of course we can’t see Creationisms infantile parody of evolution happening in front of our eyes. It was invented specifically to exclude that possibility by requiring one species to suddenly and spontaneously give rise to another species.

      In fact, as Dan Dennet pointed out in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, we can only know if speciation has occurred many generations and very many years after it ‘happened’ because there never was a specific speciation event  (or only rarely in the case of mutation or hybridization with some plants and even then only history will judge whether a new species arose or merely a  plant with a mutation or polyploidy lived for a while).

      Creationist frauds like Ken Ham earn their living constructing straw men then amazing their credulous and ignorant audience with their stone-throwing prowess.

  • Martin

    Shouldn’t the word “science” in “science guys” be in quotes… : “Science” Guys… :D

    • http://twitter.com/rjblaskiewicz Bob Blaskiewicz

      I believe you mean “schmience.”

    • Maria

      Yes! Because Bill Nye is the only Science Guy(person) on this whole post!

  • Martin

    And the mother who says they should teach both… sorry, but why stop at just Biblical creationism, she is saying it is “good science” to teach both, but if teaching myths alongside science is good science, you have to teach all.

    • SwedishLore15

      Why stop with evolution?  Why not “teach the (non-existent except in the minds of those whose understanding of science is severely limited) controversy” when it comes to other scientific theories as well?  Why not devote all school hours to accommodating religious alternatives to well-supported scientific theories and do away with all of those other useless classes?

      • Namansingh210287

        Why not have our curriculum decided upon by the church (or whatever) and disband the school boards and regulatory bodies.
        The grades will be given on how many ridiculous ideas a pupil might believe or can have faith on.
        May be then the Messiah will be pleased kill us all and take us to hell (or may be heaven(or whatever))

    • M_j_gallant

      Exactly. Herpetology doesn’t teach dragon lore, as far as I know. I’ve never heard of botanists having to learn about the curious phenomenon of people growing on trees in strange, exotic lands. Not once in zoology did I ever have to learn about a unicorn.

      • Jesse L Sinclair

         Speaking as an amateur herpetologist if someone taught a Dragon Husbandry class I’d so take it.

        I’ve always wanted to raise a V. komodoensis!

    • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

      It’s a dishonest attempt to play on Americans’ sense of fairness by injecting fake relativism into science. “Why can’t we just let the kids decide for themselves?” That might fly in subjective fields, like anything related to aesthetics, but science? Hell no. We know what you’re trying to do: make science look like a worldview that is on equal footing with your mythology, so that you can claim that there’s scientific dogma, scientific priesthood, scientific heresy, etc.

  • http://profiles.google.com/statueofmike Michael S

    I don’t believe Bill Nye doesn’t have an honorary degree or two, Ph.D. or no.

    • http://twitter.com/Noadi Sheryl

       He even has a real degree, not a Ph.D. but a quite valid degree in mechanical engineering and he worked for Boeing and consulted for NASA.

      • Icaarus

        Consults, as in still does, actively. He ain’t dead yet. 

      • kenneth

        In any case, science is not settled by the weight of someone’s title, but by the weight of evidence. Menton and Purdom are living proof that any fool can acquire a title. Nye, and for that matter any 8th grader who pays attention to the scientific method is 10 times the scientist as these two. 

        • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

          A Ph.D. (I have one) simply means that one was able to do the following:

          1. perform well on the required course work

          2. do well on some qualification exams sometimes involving writing and defending a series of review papers within one’s field.

          3. writing and defending a dissertation containing new research

          4. getting from around 5 to 7 other Ph.D.s at your institution to sign that you did the work and deserve a Ph.D.   Of these one is your dissertation advisor, one the department chair, etc.

          It is quite possible for a sufficiently motivated young-earth creationist to do all these steps and get the Ph.D. with the ultimate goal of levering it to fight against science in the future and champion their creationist beliefs. It is sad but true. Abuses of science in this way are fortunately rare but it can happen.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Don’t forget doing a bunch of work for little or not credit to support the work of those in step 4.

            (Speaking from hearsay not experience.  I don’t have one myself)

  • The Captain

    They couldn’t even make an original video! They just copied the exact production design of the Nye video for their own. Right down to the logo placement and the font. They don’t even have video production integrity and they want you to believe they have intellectual integrity? 

    It should also be noted that they could copy all the basics just fine but apparently gradienting the font color was just a but too hard. So they couldn’t even get that right.

    • The Captain

      * bit too hard.

    • LesterBallard

      Well, Judaism and Christianity borrowed (stole) heavily from other traditions. Why stop now?

    • ariofrio

      If this is supposed to be a logical argument, I call ad hominem!

  • Martin

    Sorry for the multiple posts. but how the heck does human worldview weigh in on evidence based reality.  Human beliefs have nothing to do with facts.  She is basically saying “I want this to be the reason why the world is the way it is, so it must be”.  This is the worst kind of science, as any scientist knows you cannot will your hypothesis to be true.  Many “scientists” have been blacklisted for attempting to take that route. 

    • ariofrio

      No, no, she is assuming that God exists. Then, based on this assumption, she concludes that creationism is true. This is no different, in essence, from any other assumption a scientist makes: a physicist will assume that Newton’s laws are true (or Einstein’s, depending on context). Never mind how good these assumptions are. Attack the assumption, or the reasoning toward the conclusion, but not the method: it seems just fine to me.

      Also, I don’t see how basing scientific beliefs on worldviews make one similar to those blacklisted “scientists”. I will, however, concede that it makes for incomplete science (or perhaps not science at all!)

  • http://profiles.google.com/schwabby Aaron Schwab

    Fuckin’ ‘ell, this makes my brain, eyes, left knee, and three of my ribs hurt.

  • Pseudonym

    In turn, Dr. Perdom, I teach creation to my kids as well as evolution.

    No, not creation science. There’s no such thing as creation science. But I teach them the creation mythologies of many cultures, including their own Christian culture.

    Mythology is not to be shunned, as creationists do, relegated to a mere source of inconsequential factoids. It is to be embraced as one of the most successful ways that we have, as a species, tried to comprehend the human condition.

    Life is poorer without at least some mythology in it. That’s one of the many reasons why I could never be a creationist.

    • http://profiles.google.com/statueofmike Michael S

      My community college had a great “Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion” class (That was the actual class title). I always wondered how many students were hoping to stumble into Hogwarts or something, with a name like that. It was a great survey course of magical beliefs and mythologies and ultimately emphasized the redundancies in the title instead.

      • http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/ Garren

        Took a class with the same title at Iowa State University. It was a major factor in coming to see my own fundamentalist Christianity as just another human religion.

        Same psychology; many different doctrines. OH HEY maybe religion is about human psychology rather than spirits?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=665584920 Scott Macauley

      I think there are ways to be creative that don’t require myths based in theology. If you look at all fiction as a myth in some form or another (which, essentially, they are), then you can enjoy that creativity without the existence of foolish beliefs, and the other upshot is that writers of fiction nowadays at least make an effort to try and ground their stuff in reality to some degree.

      • Jesse L Sinclair

         That’s whats beautiful about mythology, they were trying to root their beliefs in reality too.

        The fact that they were wrong doesn’t matter. Mythology is like the fossil evidence of people trying to work shit out since the beginning, and thats a pretty awesome thing.

  • LesterBallard

    There is no point in discussing these issues with these people; no use trying to make an argument; no use in presenting the evidence. All they deserve is mockery and scorn. The only valid places to fight them are in the legal and political arenas. 

    • http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/ Garren

      That may be true about the people making videos like this, but it’s not true about Young Earth Creationists in general. Some of them are capable of changing their mind if the evidence is presented in an accessible and non off-putting way.

      • LesterBallard

        You mean kiss their asses.

        • http://wordsideasandthings.blogspot.com/ Garren

          I mean not be an ass while presenting the evidence.

      • M_j_gallant

         I’ve not encountered such a person as you describe here. I’ve debated this stuff with people for years and not once have I ever known a YEC to budge an inch, no matter how you present the facts to them.

        • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

          I’m a former YEC. We can get better.

          • Alex

            What changed your mind?

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            And would you consider writing an article about it?  Or have you?  I’d vote for Hermanta to publish it.

          • ReadsInTrees

            Yes, please right a guest post on this topic. All YEC I’ve encountered have refused to budge. I did work with ONE for a while that was at least interested in the details of evolution and things like tectonic plates, and we spent some time together with Wikipedia (it’s easiest) looking up some of the details that I’ve forgotten since I last took a biology class……..So, all that was positive, but I don’t think he’s there yet.
            On the other hand, another coworker who is vaguely religious, said to me, “I don’t think I believe in evolution….I mean, I’ve never seen a fish that had legs or could breath are.” All I had to do was show him some videos of coelacanths and lungfish. That was enough for him to see that he was looking at the tip of the iceberg in terms of evolutionary knowledge.

            • Alan R

              Readsin Trees,
              I am catholic. What is a YEC? Evolution does not bother my theology.  I was agnostic before catholic. I majored in psych and took as many philosophy classes as I could. I’m not an expert in any field but I try to read alot.

              I have a serious question that someone on these comments might be able to point me in the right direction.  This question is not intended to discount evolution.

              I was reading about the development of early civilizations and for the most part it seems that there were five or so early centers where civilization began to develop estimated about 6000-5500 b.c.

              1. what happened at that time to cause civilizations to develope then and to continue to progress so rapidly.

              2. I think the jewish calander is on year 5700ish. Is there any writings that you know of that develop those two events as to a possible relationship?

              I guess my question is not so much about whether evolution is taking place but why civilizations started to develope when they did and is it possible that an event recoreded in Genesis reflects a real event?

              I’m not trying to get into a debate about the truth of God’s existence. I am just curious and have not come across any articles or books that address this in the Christian tradition or theology, but I may have just missed it.

              Can someone point me in the right direction?

              Peace,
              Alan R

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                YEC = Young Earth Creationist.

                You might find some answers in this thread 
                http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response as people talk about reconciling evolution with the bible in various ways.

                 is it possible that an event recoreded in Genesis reflects a real event 

                My own opinion, and I’d venture most of the regulars here, is going to be ‘no’.  But then, we’re mostly atheists, and we mostly consider the bible to be a collection of works of fiction, with a few historical influences.

              • ReadsInTrees

                Ah ha! I learned all about this in my Culture and the Environment class when I was in college. We talked a LOT about the development of civilizations. I don’t remember a lot of the details, but obviously early human civilizations began with agriculture. Once humans stopped being nomads and settled down to farm, then civilizations began to grow. There were many early civilizations, and not all of them started around 6000-5500 b.c. Look at this timeline which shows when certain stages of agriculture began: 
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_agriculture_and_food_technology
                This is too big of a topic to sum up here….basically, civilizations began with the keeping of livestock and with the harvesting of grasses (wheat, corn, rice). Keep doing your research!

              • Irishhms77

                Actually, Alan, these are good questions. Allow an anthropologist to respond……around 10,000 years ago, the earth’s climate started to change. It got warmer, wetter in some areas and dryer in other areas. Before this time, people were hunters and gatherers, living off of what they could get from nature. After this climate change, people began domesticating plants and animals. The reasons for this are hotly debated, but we can all agree on the fact that they did start domesticating at this time. Anyway, after people began domesticating plants and animals and therefore growing stable crops, they also began to settle down. It is hard to grow large amounts of food if you are moving around all over the place. When people settled down, they started accumulating. The population started growing, either because of the availability of food or in order to help grow the food. As more and more people started living in close contact in permanent settlements, certain social changes occurred, leading to the grand civilizations. You will note that the earliest centers of civilization are also the earliest centers of domestication.

                I’m sorry that there isn’t enough room
                 here to give this topic its proper attention, but there are many good resources that can give you extra info on this. Some good places to start are any introductory anthropology textbook or a book by Jared Diamond.

                As to your question about events recorded in Genesis, there isn othing after Abraham which would be connected to this, since he had domesticated animals, he was obviously after the onset of domestication and he visited cities so civilizations were already flourishing. I don’t hink there is anything mentioned pre-Abraham, either, because even the story of Babel, etc., mention cities which did not occur until after domestication and the flourishing of civilizations.

                Hope this helps, at least a little, or gives you some info to get you started!

  • Icaarus

    I can’t believe that Menton went to Brown. Also, as a Ph.D. with an active teaching docket, why did his nameplate have his alma mater instead of his current institution? With Purdom it makes sense since she only taught for 6 years at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio, but for Menton he taught at a med school in St. Louis for years. I tried to confirm that he is currently faculty but couldn’t. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1351473675 Matthew Baker

    AIG working hard to keep your children scientifically illiterate so you don’t have to.   Come on down to the Creation “Museum”– where lying to children is perfectly ok if you do it for Jesus. Ride a dinosaur just like Adam and Jesus did. If you hurry you can get your own pair of biblical glasses–can’t see a rose colored reality with out them.

  • farnsworth

    Is Menton stupid, or is he a disingenuous liar?

    He says, “…you have to assume all of its parts have somehow come together by random purposeless change….”  Evolution doesn’t say that, or even imply that.  He is either willfully ignorant, or he doesn’t care that he is lying.  By the way, if he is lying, it is the special kind of lying, bearing false witness, that violates the “Ten Commandments.”The “observational” versus “historical” science canard is something you only hear from creationists.  Not even a nice try.

    • Piet

       

      Is Menton stupid, or is he a disingenuous liar?

      Probably both.

    • CelticWhisper

      “Is Menton stupid, or is he a disingenuous liar?”

      Yes.

  • http://forthesakeofscience.com/ Michael Hawkins

    I’ve spoken with Dr. Menton. He is as much an idiot over the phone as he is over the Internet.

    • Earl G.

      For some reason, I’m picturing him talking into the wrong end of the phone.

      • Søren Steinbeck

         This is my favorite comment on this page ^^^^^   :0)

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

     Observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis

    Observational science confirms that we are all related.  God didn’t make man on a separate day from everything else.  And he didn’t make woman from a rib.  To think that, you really have to have your head in the sand.  Or somewhere.

    • onamission5

      “Observational science confirms the literal history in Genesis”

      Which is why men are mostly made of silica and women are mostly calcium.

      Oh, wait…

    • ReadsInTrees

      God created everything out of nothing…and then he couldn’t figure out how to make a woman out of nothing, so he had to use a rib. Hm.

      • ariofrio

        He couldn’t figure out how to do it, OR he decided not to. Even if he created the woman out of a man’s rib, he created the rib out of nothing, so he did, in fact, create everything out of nothing. I don’t think there’s a contradiction here.

        There are many better arguments against creationism. :-)

  • Pepe

    And as always comments and ratings are disabled on the video.

  • Namansingh210287

    Meanwhile in India: People don’t give a damn about creationism. Its limited to the religious texts only. In schools and colleges ” only Evolution” is taught.
     However we should congratulate Creationists on their smartness, when they disabled the comments. What science  ( creation) is this which does not even leaves scope for debate or comments?  

    • Anurraagg A

       Our problem here is not religion but superstition. Once we grow out of that we should be able to tackle the various other “evils” (religious and linguistic separatists, corruption etc..). Even a half decent educational system should have taken care of the irrational ones in our country a decade ago. I can’t believe engineers do pooja before they start work on a bridge.

  • 1243

    Why are ratings and comments disabled in the video? 

    • Piet

       Because they are afraid to be confronted with facts.

    • Glasofruix

      Because they’re affraid that someone might point out their bullshit.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        …might?

        • Glasofruix

          What’s the right word? I’m not 100% fluent in english yet.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Ah, no, it’s not a language thing at all, it’s just that if they had commenting enabled, the chances of someone pointing out the bullshit is nearly 100%.

          • The Other Weirdo

             The word you’re looking for is will.  As in:

            Because they’re afraid someone will point out their bullshit.

            • Glasofruix

              Oh yeah, only one “f” in afraid. I know the difference between will and might, my intention was to convey some sarcasm :p

  • http://godless.biz Andrew Skegg

    My face hurts.

  • Aimee

    More nonsense coming out of the Mythsonian.  I dearly hope that Nye is right about this being a non-issue in generations to come.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joseph-George/100000198120124 Joseph George

      “Mythsonian” Brilliant, and more important, hilarious. 

  • 7mononoke

    Rip, rip, rip, chomp. Idiots.

  • Seb Jowett

    “Learning more science makes my head hurt!”

    Means

    “So keep your brain free of pain like I do by being ignorant and not asking questions!”

    Good grief!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sandy-Kokch/100000074576649 Sandy Kokch

    You could always try what I have done.

    After seeing a few “debates” posted by the religious side that ALL have the comments sections disabled I wrote to YouTube and set out an argument for how this was a sort of abuse of their system, and said that when someone puts up a controversial video that by its very content invites if not demands comments, they should not be able to disable commenting on that video. I pointed out that this was a common practice with these religious videos, and that allowing it just turned YouTube into a propaganda outlet rather than a free forum of information, education and debate. I also pointed out that in some cases the video description below was potentially slanderous to the non religious participant in the debate, and gave examples where William Lane Craig had called his opponent “cranks” etc in the description.

    In the end I asked that the policy of allowing commenting to be disabled was ended and that all videos posted to the system should be equally open to comment.

    Although I got the standard “your comments have been noted and we may reply in more detail at a later date response”, which I doubt, if enough people follow suit and petition YouTube to end the comment disabling maybe they will cave in.

    Give it a try my mateys.

    • observer

      No, let them disable comments on their videos if they wish. The only way we can show what kind of people they are: people who claim to know everything, yet don’t want to be challenged. It’s a similar principle of how the Bible can make you and atheist if you read between the lines.

      The most effective way to make the extremes of religion look unappealing is to let them do what they do, and show it; any censorship they make speaks more volume of what kind of people they are.

      • http://www.facebook.com/steven.satx Steven Satx

         So much for “peer review” one of the most important parts of the scientific process.  The last thing they want is anybody knowing anything about evolution (let alone an evolutionary scientist) getting a chance to poke holes in their “theory”

    • BenofSoCal

      Gotta disagree with you, observer.  I like Sandy’s idea and I’m going to write to YouTube.  Frankly, I think too many people take what they see on a CRT (Ok, flat screen, nowadays) at face value and have to see both sides of an issue before they even realize that there’s another side.  Ken Ham and the rest of his goddamn creationist weasels know exactly what they’re doing when they disable comments.  They know it allows them to post disingenuous lies without the fear of being exposed.  Free speech is one thing.  Propaganda is quite another.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    I got to the point to were the geneticist said “there was a complete lack of a genetic mechanism  for organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex.”

    It’s called Deoxyribonucleic acid! (Normally I don’t want to shout on the interwebs, but she’s a geneticist who’s apparently never heard of DNA. ) 

    • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

      To add a little…

      DNA includes a transcription history of what has worked for the life form in past (sometimes distance past) generations. Mutation, crossover, and other mixing or changing of the genetic code provides an opportunity for natural selection to take place. The generations become more complex over time (vast amounts of time) as selection works out which changes are better suited for the changing environment with carrying along much of the “baggage” of the prior DNA information. Elaborate structures can then end up forming in finding new ways to utilize slightly altered DNA to better compete in the world. Thus we get more complex organisms over vast time. The creationists just can’t (or won’t) wrap their mind around this whole process. It really does explain going from simple to complex quite nicely.

      Saying “God did it” doesn’t explain anything at all. It is a statement with no informative value. Almost like saying “Things are”.

      I have no problem with people criticizing evolution theory but to assume that there is any legitimate automatic fallback position like creationism is ludicrous. There is no other theory out there to explain what we see in the fossil record besides evolution theory.

    • http://www.facebook.com/klpprsn Kyle B. Epperson

      RNA is the key point that is needed for DNA to replicate… just a clarification

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Patrick/100000027906887 Adam Patrick

    How the hell do these people get PhD’s while not knowing a damn thing about science?

    • Glasofruix

      The key words are “real” and “museum” in that order and in the same sentence ;-)

  • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

    The creationists don’t believe in science.  they believe that the infallible word of God (explaining everything) was handed to mankind via holy scripture and it can’t be questioned and there is no need to discuss or critique it.  There is only a need to believe it and present it for all others to read, accept, and believe.  Yes, they hate the very essence of science.

    I hope the misguided (or fooled) professors that signed Purdom’s and Menton’s Ph.D. diplomas are quite embarrassed.

    • Bob M

      “Ph.D.” Stands for “Doctor of Philosophy” and is typically awarded for ANY specialty that is not medicine, law, or theology. So, you can have a Ph.D. and not know much more about science than how to spell it.

  • JudyV

    My fundamentalist brother posted this on my wall this morning.  I don’t know, am I supposed to be impressed?

    • Mary Leinart

       My mom did, too. What can you do? *sigh*

  • Mandocommando23

    She says vaccines are “here and now” science, by they PROVE EVOLUTION!

  • Maria

    Dr. Purdom: “I want my daughter to be educated about evolution, so she can see the inherent problems with it, such as the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain information to go from simple to complex over time” 
    Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm…..DNA MAYBE?!?!?!?! Her saying this is completely dangerous, as people will ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!  I’m very afraid. Very.

    • Earl G.

      If her daughter takes even a single high school biology class, she should learn MANY genetic mechanisms for “gaining information.”  Geesh.  I guess Purdom slept through all her classes.

  • MegaZeusThor

    Here’s Bill talking about the “controversy” after the fact:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505270_162-57501492/bill-nye-on-creationism-critique-im-not-attacking-religion/ 

    Makes me a little sad about the egg shells he must walk on about religion, but I understand it.

    Dawkins would be more direct about the non-sense – and some people would be “turned off by it.” We need both approaches.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Dawkins does point out that most non-US religious leaders fully accept evolution.

  • Octoberfurst

     I can’t believe those two idiots have PhD’s. It scares me that they are out there actually teaching kids this nonsense.  And it is so typical that comments and ratings have been disabled for that video.  Christians hate to be called out on their bullshit.

  • Xeon2000

    I’m afraid if I watch the video I’ll start throwing things across the room. Hmm…

  • http://www.facebook.com/naseem.rayyan Naseem Rayyan

    I don’t want to live on this planet anymore

  • Tainda

    Ignorance is bliss

  • Gunstargreen

    Bill Nye used simple words to blow their entire argument out of the water. It’s no surprise that they were so incredibly cheesed off by how eloquent and truthful he was they actually had to respond.

    They blabber on about confusing, made up nonsense about a science they don’t understand and the bible as if it were a factual document.

    This is why Bill Nye is an amazing educator and they’re idiots with zero worth to the scientific community.

    • The Celestial

      These two “Scientists” should have their PhD’s revoked…. Bill has 10,000 times more smarts and imagination than these two idiots. I think that’s the equation…. scientists have imagination and have the want to look over the horizon to see what is over the next hill…. Creationist are willing to sit on their ass, don’t think and beileve that someone did it, using only a bronze age book as their source of info, forgetting or ignoring that MEN were the ones who wrote it, most who were possibly either delusional, on drugs or after drinking too many beers!

  • Vampboy

    I like that they misrepresent where Dr Purdom works to try and give her legitimacy. She does not work at Ohio State, she works at Mount Vernon Nazarene College. Isn’t lying a sin? 

    • Glasofruix

      Not if you’re doing it for Jeebus.

  • NogahdzNoughmasters

    [zzzt...zzzzt] can’t respond….blood pressure too…high….2:26 my head a splode

  • http://www.facebook.com/abrooksdavis Andrew Brooks-Davis

    I feel sick. How can someone with a pHD even contemplate advocating the creationism bullshit? seriously. It makes my brain ache from attempting to  process the sheer idiocracy of it :-/

  • Matt Smith

    They’re using a teleprompter!!1!

  • Reason_Being

    Ughh…what nonsense.  I am always a bit suspicious about things like that that do not allow comments.  It implies that they really are not interested in debate at all.  And let’s be honest, creationists are interested in hearing facts nor what other people think.

  • Make It Stop

    I think I just had a stroke.

  • Jui

    you are awesome for writing this article. Thnx Hemant!

  • http://www.facebook.com/bbeberstein Brent Beberstein

    This crap makes me angry! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/daniel.kloberdanz Daniel Kloberdanz

    I think we found the magical mystery doctors that taught Todd Akin about rape.

  • Whosaidso

    Interestingly enough is the fact that the PhDs (nor Bill Nye) have not described the process by which the initially recognizable item was created. When this is described, the description will include objects whose origins are undescribed. Faith in an omnipotent is not undermined.

  • http://www.facebook.com/atheistanthony Anthony Lee

    soooo…..here’s some info on the academic integrity of david menton 
    http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2007/03/dr-david-menton-is-liar.html

    and a video that allows mrs georgia purdom to illustrate herself that she is a well educated moron http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/03/17/a-skeptic-in-creation-land/

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      There’s a key moment in there, where I think Shermer missed something.  At about 12:00 they’re talking about the age of the earth, 6K or 4.5B.  They agree every individual goes in with a starting bias, she at 6K, but then she says a “you” go in with the staring assumption of 4.5B.

      But.

      When people first started working out the age of the earth, they didn’t start at 4.5B.  The data lead them there.  You could argue that now a scientist would be biases to results near 4.5B, and it would take extraordinary evidence to move them away from it.

      The kicker is when she says “it’s really no different” and then corrects herself “the difference is that ours is true”

      Even if you’re biases, if you look for answers to fit your ‘truth’ and more importantly start out by saying your truth cannot be wrong so any data that contradicts you truth is wrong there you will forever remain deluded.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jessamyrick Jessica Peeples Myrick

    These people sound so absurd and uneducated.  

  • M_j_gallant

    Science has provided us with volumes upon volumes of evidence, experiments, practical applications and proofs for evolution, and these creationist twits think they can discredit it by saying “it can’t be true because the bible says we were created”. Get over it, the facts are in – evolution is by far the winner here. Creation doesn’t even make it as a decent fantasy story, let alone truth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Janee-Taylor/100002786114428 Jane’e Taylor

    Oh Grell, the stupidity burns!
     

  • Nicolas Chan

    Shameful. This is why America is in decline.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nolon Nolon Lawrence

    Evolution, or not. Though there is facts upon facts for evolution. The bible teaches to hate. That is enough to be shamed for believing in a god especially from that book. 

  • Derekrodgers1978

    i have my doctorate in anthropology and behavioural sciences from the university of calgary…anytime this “doctor of genetics” wants to debate on evolution and creationism, i will gladly debunk all her garbage…also, i have read the bible, koran and im starting to read jehovahs book..why?…it just goes to show you, if there was science in the middle east 2-3000 years ago, the bible would have never been written

  • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

    Notice how Purdom said that she and other Christian parents teach their children about evolution? That’s not the same thing as teaching them evolution. They teach about how it’s fiction. Ugh.

  • Ari_leopold

    the noah’s arc story is a description of evolution. the bible is right and modern creationists are on the wrong side of their own tradition

    • Ari_leopold

      sorry *ark

      • Spuddie

        Still stupid even after the correction.

        So how did Noah build a giant ship immeasurably faster and larger than the shipwrights of Greece several thousand years could ever do with their technology?

        How did Noah not die of super-cholera from the herbivore poop which would have been inundated the ship?

        How did Noah feed the carnivores?

        Oh yes, its all a miracle. Science be damned!

    • TheBlackCat

       Wait, what?  How do you figure that?

    • Miss_Beara

      (me being speechless)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-De-Fleuriot/611844223 Mike De Fleuriot

    I would like to see a big push back from the atheist community, pointing out the fact that these theists, of all stripes,  always turn off voting and block comments. Get the general public talking about how these theists fear criticism of their views. If we could make this a big issue in the minds of people, it could make them start to question the theists themselves.

    It does not only have to be on youtube, but across all social media, facebook, huffpo, CP, examiner, and others. Anywhere religion is talked about, mention the fact that theists always close off comments, if that option is under their control. All you need do is put in one sentence at the end of your comment about this, maybe even have a copypasta of your comment ready for when you do make your replies to articles, videos, and posts.

  • the truth

    I will never understand why when rasional people see facts they embrace the truth and the bible has no answers, but when religous people see the facts they curl up in to a ball and scream “NO!!! JESUS LOVES ME!!!” to which i reply “dumbass”

  • shocked

    “There are two types of science: observational science and historical science. …… Historical science deals with the past, and both evolution and creationism fall into that category.” 
    That literally hurt. It hurt to hear that creationism is a science. 

    And can we please pretend that they didn’t suggest that if you can’t “observe it, test it, and repeat it”, it is still considered science?

  • Johnwelte

    Purdom said in an interview with Michael Shermer in2010 that evolution was not mentioned when she studied biology at Ohio State. And we should believe her comments now???

  • Johnwelte

    I think that video is still zvailable on Shermers blog. March 2010?

  • Launabanauana

    I’ve never seen god right in front of my eyes either!

  • quawonk

    Actually, the creationists are right. Nye’s credentials don’t come close to theirs. He far exceeds them by light years. The equivalent of a hammer compared to Einstein.* A PhD in creationism is equivalent of a PhD in the easter bunny or the tooth fairy, and in a sane society would be taken just as seriously.

    *apologies to any hammers who were offended at being compared to creationists.

    • bwaterme

      So in this not so sane society that you suggest we live in, do you mean that we (including you) are not sane?   I am for sure confused as to how we define sane versus insane.  I must be insane…I guess. 

      You also seem to be a fair “judge” of level of intelligence.  No disrespect intended.  I agree that a hammer is likely not as intelligent as Einstein.  But are your credentials or any person’s better than all person’s?  For sure there are less informed on both cases.  But please don’t dismiss them as a hammer or supporter of the Easter Bunny.  I suspect a proponent (like Einstein) of an expanding universe would immediately dismiss the idea that said universe was somehow created from nothing.  Forget the biblical creation.  Just consider the possibility of some sort of creation.  And I may be completely missing your point.  If so I respectfully apologize.

      I really only have one question, and I mean it sincerely.  You mention light years, and trust me that I know the literal and mathematical definition of a light year. Where did light come from? 

  • Earl G.

    And their Ph.D.s are in WHAT, exactly?

  • dkindle

     5000 whining atheists vs the Great Prophet

    how the divine pen of Michel N. crushed the international atheist movement

    skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18660

    youtube.com/watch?v=s3lwG4MytSI

    one applicant right here…

    get the POINT, Randi….

    for lies on top of lies

    youtube.com/watch?v=bbmXpNEFipE

    do you think you can threaten my right to FREE SPEECH?

    what if I told you that I am not who you think I am….

    Not Dennis Markuze – but a FAN!

    youtube.com/watch?v=nvatDdOWcLw&lc

    you’re not the center of the universe!

    youtube.com/watch?v=3yRpSNIOwA4

    a dishonest liar

    ____

    youtube.com/watch?v=ruQFh_TkPto

    WHINE WHINE WHINE

  • j me

     Could someone please tell me where all living and non-living matter came from in the first place?

    • Daniel Sachse

      That is not the job of the theory of evolution, that would be cosmology, and then one would need a good model of abiogenesis. Both, especially the former, exist, but are not the scope of evolution. Evolution deals exclusively with how life forms change and adapt over time. (I will admit, though, that some of its concepts can also be useful inspirations in other disciplines.)

      Apart from that, saying “aha, your theory doesn’t explain THAT!” doesn’t prove that (a) the theory is wrong or (b) that an opposing theory (I suppose you’re implying that some god did it) is true. There is no logical connection here.

      “AHA! The public transport map of Munich doesn’t explain Munich’s history!”… So?

      • j me

        But having the public transport map of Munich will not help you if you are in Paris.  Where you end up depends on where you begin.  Not knowing where you began can take you to many wrong places. 
         

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          But any subway map won’t help you if you’re in a cave.  You think that your subway map matches the cave you’re in, but you’re most likely wrong.  Now neither of us has a map to the cave we’re in, but at least I know I don’t have a map, so I set about exploring and mapping.  You think you have a working map, and are desperately trying to turn your map the right way to match your surroundings.

          • j me

             But how did you get into the cave.  and where did the cave and you come from?

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              The same place as your imaginary map.  I pulled it out of my ass.

              You’re the one making up ridiculous analogies to to try to prove that you must know everything to know anything, which is plainly ridiculous.

              Faith is pretending to know things you don’t.  Neither of us know how life started.  I know that I don’t know.  I’m not sure what you think.

              • j me

                 According to Merriam Webster,  Faith is firm belief in something for which there is no proof
                You have no proof how life started or how non-living things came to be. 
                All theories and laws in science do not show how something can come from nothing.
                Thus, you have faith that all non living and living things came from nothing.

                Also, I am not making analogies, I am just responding to the analogies that people are giving me.  You only think they are ridiculous because you can’t respond to them.

                I am not saying that you must know everything to know anything, but not knowing some things will affect how well you can understand other things.  Many theories have changed when we learn new things.  The more we know, the more we understand.  You appear not to want to know more.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  Thus, you have faith that all non living and living things came from nothing.

                  Nope.

                  Non-living: I’m not going to explain the big bang, because a) I don’t have room and b) there are better sources than me.  I’m not a cosmologist.  If you cared you’d go read Krauss.

                  Living: I don’t know.  Which, by the definition you present, is not faith.

                  If you claim “God” as the answer for anything, then you are using faith, since there is no proof of God.

                  I’m not really sure what your argument is.  You think I’m using faith but not admitting it?  Or you think I should be assuming God must have created life since I don’t have my own explanation?

                  Many theories have changed when we learn new things.

                  Sure.  That’s the scientific method.  It is not, however, the theological method.

                  I’m in favor of knowing more.  I’m just not in favor of assuming it must be God, when it probably isn’t God.

    • Spuddie

      Can you show me where in the Bible it says God is a giant cheese sandwich?

      If you think that has to do with evolution, you are asking the wrong questions.

  • bwaterme

    My intention on posting this is not to debate creation versus evolution.  I just want to tell you that as I objectively read these posts, I am very turned off by what so many people are saying, or more so how they are saying it.  

    If I were undecided on the issue, I would quickly get turned off by the atheist position.  Name calling, using words like “ignorant,” etc. just seems to indicate that maybe you are a little close-minded.  There are plenty of books written that present a good case for both creation and macro-evolution.  There are plenty of scientist that support macro-evolution, and plenty that support intelligent design.

    I can’t speak to the level of research of any of you who posted.  I am sure some of you are well researched on both sides, some only well researched on the other, and some not well researched at all.  What I can tell you is that when you completely dismiss someone else’s opinion and call them names, or assume they have not done extensive research, you are the one that comes across as close-minded.  So instead of name calling or making assumptions, I would encourage you to post well researched facts, with some evidence that supports those facts.  This goes for both sides.  An example of what a post like this would look like:

    In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down.”  Therefore, the irreducible complexity of cell that we can now see deep into poses a problem for macro-eveloution.  Of course there are objections to this, and one such essay written addressing this can be found here: 

    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

    If you believe there is a god then I hope you believe that we should all be tolerant with each other.  If you don’t believe in god, I think you should believe the same, but some of your posts scare me into thinking that perhaps you don’t believe in tolerance and respect.  And if it is true that you do not believe in such tolerance and respect, then I guess you are validating the atheist position that there is no god, and therefore there is no morale codes/standards we should live by.  And if you believe there are no morale codes/standards we should live by, then go jump off a bridge please. 

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Our language is reflective of our frustration at people continuing to push religion in our kids’ science classes.  It’s religion.  It’s not science.  There is no theory of creation or intelligent design.  There are creation myths (including Genesis) and there are sets of arguments against evolution, all of which, including the one you cite, have been debunked.

      In short, only the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life with something other than “God did it”.  If God did it, then God used evolution.

      Cdesign proponentsists had their chance in a court of law in Dover PA.  Their best case failed miserably.  It wasn’t an ‘activist judge’, or ‘legislating from the bench’.  It was an objective analysis of both sides.

      If you’re so concerned about a few atheists tossing around ‘ignorant’ in utter frustration, I suggest you read Mathew 7:3 and then spend a few minutes at an ultra conservative site like The Blaze or WND, or Fox, and see what kind of language is used against atheists.

      • bwaterme

        Rich,

        I appreciate your well thought out response.  I completely agree with your reference to Matthew 7:3.  I would equally discourage such language from the theist.  It is not so much that it concerns me.  I just wanted to point out that harsh language from either side does not encourage healthy debate that can ultimately lead to readers opening their mind to opposing positions.  I came to this site curious, looking for some information, facts, intelligent discussion, or anything that would further validate my belief, or help me better understand those who oppose my belief.  I ended up on this discussion, and was simply disappointed.  Perhaps had their been more intelligent, factual based posts, something would have prompted me to dig further.  What I found was a lack of tolerance, mockery, and frankly lack of human respect.  I expected more from something titled the “Friendly Atheist.”  And you are 100% correct in that the same kind of hipocracy can easily be seen on creationist or extreme right sites.  Shame on them too.  If everyone posted intelligent and well thought out responses, perhaps those seeking different views would not get so turned off. 

        I think it may be too decisive to say that all challenges to macro-evolution have been debunked.   I think there is less or little debate that micro-evolution occurs.  But to accept that all life came from non-life is hard for many people to fully understand or accept at this point.  If all counter to macro-evolution ideas had been fully debunked, then why is there still debate?  Because 100% of the people who beleive in intelligent design are close-minded, ignorant, or unintelligent?  I personally struggle to accept that.  Therefore, there must be intelligent, logical, and fact based points that can support either position. 

        If the case for macro-evolution is so strong and clear, why not teach kids the concepts of intelligent design so they are best informed?  Do we all not have something to gain if kids are fairly taught why people believe in macro-evolution, and why others believe in intelligent design.  I am not suggesting we even have to teach them Biblical creation.  Simply teach them why some believe there is a creator, and why some don’t believe in it?  If the case for macro-evolution is so undenyably strong, then kids will see that and over time macro-evolution will be the unilateral worldview.  There are plenty of legitimate scientist that believe in intelligent design.  Teaching macro-evolution as undenyable fact without presenting the counter arguements only makes kids more suseptable to someone being able to convince them that they were taught wrong.  Give them both cases, present the evidence, and let them decide.   Are macro-evolutonist scared that kids may choose on their own the opposing position?  I doubt that, but some could interpret it as such, and therefore use that against the macro-evolutionsit.   

        Again, I do appreciate the healthy dialouge and I am glad you responded as such.  I would encourage others (both views) to always do the same.  Because if your comments seem intolerant or disrespectful, you could turn someone away that was open-minded and was considering changing to “your” team. 

        • TheBlackCat

          I think it may be too decisive to say that all challenges to
          macro-evolution have been debunked.

          Whether device or not, it is the truth.  The truth does not always make everyone happy.

          But to accept that all life came
          from non-life is hard for many people to fully understand or accept at
          this point.

          That has nothing whatsoever to do with macroevolution.  Please learn the basics of the subject before presuming to lecture others on it.

          Let me ask you: what led you to think the life coming from non-life has anything to do with macroevolution, or evolution of any kind?  Was it a creationist or intelligent design website, by any chance?

          If all counter to macro-evolution ideas had been fully
          debunked, then why is there still debate?   Because 100% of the people
          who beleive in intelligent design are close-minded, ignorant, or
          unintelligent?  I personally struggle to accept that.  Therefore, there
          must be intelligent, logical, and fact based points that can support
          either position.

          Argument from incredulity.  Just because you can’t accept something, doesn’t make it false. 

          The leaders of the intelligent design movement have flat-out said that evidence that contradicts their beliefs must be wrong.  That is the definition of closed-minded. 

          Behe, the guy who came up with the idea of “irreducible complexity” went on the stand and, under oath, said that he hadn’t read any of the research on the blood clotting cascade, but nevertheless new it couldn’t convince him the system wasn’t irreducibly complex.  That is the definition of ignorant.  And he is one of only a handful of real scientists in the ID camp.

          If the case for macro-evolution is so strong and clear, why not teach
          kids the concepts of intelligent design so they are best informed?  Do
          we all not have something to gain if kids are fairly taught why people
          believe in macro-evolution, and why others believe in intelligent
          design.  I am not suggesting we even have to teach them Biblical
          creation.  Simply teach them why some believe there is a creator, and
          why some don’t believe in it?

          1. because it is not science.  religion does not belong in science classes
          2. because there are many people who would play up the evidence for creationism and play down or outright ignore the evidence for evolution in order to convince children that creationism is right.  That happens today, despite the law.
          3. because the discussion often involves issues too complex for them to understand.  Creationists specialize in making statements that seem plausible to those who don’t know a lot about the subject.

          Are macro-evolutonist scared that kids may choose on their own the opposing position?

          No, we are scared that children will be lied to, misled, and otherwise deceived.  We have seen what supporters of creationism want to teach, it is readily available, and it isn’t an honest overview of the facts.

          • bwaterme

            BlackCat,

            Thanks again for your responses.  I am happy that you know the absolute truth about how life develops on earth.  I apologize that I am clearly not educated or well informed enough to feel like I know that absolute truth yet.  I still have some questions. 

            What it does look like is that I have certainly stumbled across the wrong website to help me make some well informed conclusions.  My intent was never to lecture on the topic of evolution, and I see that I must not have expressed my main point well.  That point was that such strong and harsh language like “ignorant,” “moronic,” etc can turn-off an open minded seeker of information.  Thank you for your insight.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          “But to accept that all life came from non-life is hard for many people to fully understand or accept at this point. ”

          Evolution has nothing to do with where life came from.  molecular genetics proves that all life is related.  Since all life is related, something has to account for the variety we have.  The theory of evolution does that.

          “why not teach kids the concepts of intelligent design so they are best informed”

          I agree in attempting to not be unnecessarily rude.  Not that I don’t do it, but I try not to.  That said, please don’t confuse impolite with blunt.

          I don’t know the details of how evolution is or is not taught in US high schools, but if my discussions with other Americans even those who accept evolution are any indication, it’s done very poorly.  I had a creationist biology teacher in high school (in Canada) so I missed evolution entirely.  I’ve since read on my own and corrected many false assumptions I had, and many Americans still have.  If we’re already teaching evolution that poorly, I’d prefer to see resources go into teaching it properly, rather than pandering to everyone who wants to teach some false controversy.

          There are people who think the earth is <10K years old.  There are people who think Obama was born in Kenya.  There are people who think the moon landings were faked.  And there are people who for whatever reason, think we don't share a common ancestor several billion years back with seaweed.

          If someone wants to teach a University course on conspiracy theories, then fine, include ID.  But wasting students' time with everything everyone thinks could maybe be is out of the question.  Evolution is settled science.  The fact that 40% of Americans don’t know that is sad, but entertaining ID isn’t going to help.  If The Discovery Institute really wants something to be taught in schools, then they need to come up with their own explanation as to why we have so many different but distantly related forms of life.

          • bwaterme

            Rich,

            Again, well made points on all counts.  I won’t get into a debate about the infalibility of macro-evolution, because you are correct.  Scientist in an overwhelming majority accept it, and there is no denying that.  I could say something like, “science has been wrong before.”  But that is too intellectually weak.  For me to refute macro-evolution would be ridiculous becasue I myself am not well informed enough. 

            I also agree that what is taught in the U.S. needs to be better and more complete.  I was taught evolution was a fact, but was not explained the science behind it that supported the case. 

            So back to my original point, I just hope people who post on this blog realize that when they say things like “moronic” you are elevating yourself, and you certainly don’t make this a welcoming place.  And as previously agreed, sites of the counter position are all too often equally or more unwelcoming.  If you are going to call yourselves “friendly atheist,” I just highly recommend you defend your position with gentleness and respect, as Rich does.

    • TheBlackCat

      Name calling, using words like “ignorant,” etc. just seems to indicate that maybe you are a little close-minded.

      Or maybe we simply know something about the subject.  When someone says something that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the subject, it is completely accurate to call them “ignorant”.

      There
      are plenty of books written that present a good case for both creation
      and macro-evolution.

      I have read a huge amount of creationist material, and have seen absolutely zero good cases for creationism.  So have many other people.  Creationists have had a chance to make their case to the scientific community, but have failed to do so.

      There are plenty of scientist that support
      macro-evolution, and plenty that support intelligent design.

      The number of scientists that support intelligent design, by every measure taken so far, is so small as to be negligible. 

      What I can tell you is that when you completely dismiss someone else’s
      opinion and call them names, or assume they have not done extensive
      research, you are the one that comes across as close-minded.

      It is not an assumption.  If someone says something that shows they don’t understand the basics of the subject, it is safe to conclude they have not done extensive research, or not understood that research.

      So instead of name
      calling or making assumptions, I would encourage you to post well
      researched facts, with some evidence that supports those facts.  This
      goes for both sides.

      We’ve already been through the facts.  I’ve been through the facts hundreds of times alone.  The facts are out there, they are easy to find. 

      In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any
      complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by
      numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down.”
       Therefore, the irreducible complexity of cell that we can now see deep
      into poses a problem for macro-eveloution.  Of course there are
      objections to this, and one such essay written addressing this can be
      found here:

      And here we get into the lack of understand of the subject.  Just because removing a part now breaks the system, does not mean that it could not be made by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”.  The reason for this is simple.  For one thing, one of those “slight modifications” might have removed a redundant component.  Similarly, one of those “slight modifications” might have made an optional component necessary.

      The sort of  thing Darwin was talking about would, indeed, be a problem for evolution.  But the issue Darwin was talking about and Behe’s “irreducible complexity” are two entirely different things.  Evolution has no problem at all creating the sort of irreducible complexity that Behe talks about, in fact it has been directly observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

      This has been discussed over and over and over again, so anyone who makes a statement like this shows they haven’t done even basic research on the subject (or are being dishonest), have not thought much about the subject, and you have not even carefully read what you posted.

      but some of your posts scare me into thinking that perhaps you don’t believe in tolerance and respect. 

      I believe in tolerance and respect.  I also believe in honesty.  If someone demonstrates through their statements they don’t understand the subject, I am not going to lie to them and tell them they understand it.  I tolerate their idea.  I criticize them, but I think they are allowed to have them.  Respect, on the other hand, must be earned, it is not a right.

      then I guess you are validating the atheist position that there is no
      god, and therefore there is no morale codes/standards we should live by.

      Right, you go on and on about tolerance and respect, then accuse all atheists of not having morals. 

      • bwaterme

        Well I certainly apologize if my comments implied that I do not think atheists have morals.  Quite the contrary.  I believe eveyone has morals.  I speculate that you and I differ in opinion on where those morals come from.  And I think anyone might have a hard time showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that science can prove where morality comes from.  But you never know.

        • TheBlackCat

          You didn’t imply it, you flat-out said it: “therefore there is no morale codes/standards we should live by.”  Please, we aren’t stupid, we can read.

          And I notice you completely ignore everything else I said.

          • bwaterme

            Interesting.  I have posted a response 3 times now and it keeps disappearing.  Either I do not know how to post on this site, which I seemingly have done successfully before, there is currently a glitch, or a moderator is deleting even though I do not find my response offensive in any way.  I’ll paste it one more time:

            TheBlackCat,

            Again, I must
            apologize for implying something that I did not mean. I did not mean to imply
            you were stupid or illiterate. My assumption was and still is that you can
            read, and not that someone is reading this to you. I feel I have come to a
            logical assumption at this time. I also acknowledge that I do not have 100% of
            the information I need at this point in my life to make an absolute and final
            conclusion on your literacy.

            My intent on
            the morality point was merely that following SOME atheist schools of thought
            can lead SOME down a path that leads them to beleive there are no moral
            standards. I absolutely believe that atheist are moral. Again, I suppose I did
            a poor job of making my point.

            On the other
            issues, I did not respond because I am currently not well equipped enough to
            have a debate on those issues. For example, on my point about the irreducible
            complexity of a cell, I stated a point and posted a link to a counter position.
            Posting a counter point was very intentional so that if the reader were
            interested they could easily get some initial information on the topic. I was
            attempting to show how a poster could post a point, but be fair and not ignore
            a counter point. It hopefully promotes thought and further research.

            I’ll say it
            again. My initial purpose of my post was to point out that harsh language, name
            calling, and antagonism don’t lead to healthy debate. You can’t antogonize
            someone into changing their beleif. Thank you for so clearly validating my
            initial concern.

             I wish you the
            best of luck. Again, I am glad that you have found the absolute truth. I don’t
            feel like I have yet. But at least now I know that when I am seeking objective
            answers, looking to a “friendly atheist” may not be the best place to
            look for those answers delivered with gentleness and respect.

    • Spuddie

      If you were undecided on the issue, then you probably are not interested in legitimate answers.

      There is nothing of value to creationism. It is dishonest, ignorant discourse which cheapens religion and attacks science. If you take it seriously, it is only because you are unwilling to look to credible sources from the outset.

  • Lhurley4

    God is in the details refers to the creative force that exists within the matter that is created (e.g. the universe is recursive) so to deny evolution is to deny God – except for that three-dimensional God that pops up in church and on holidays!

  • Me

    As a Christian (More specifically, practicing Catholic) I’m embarrassed, along with perplexed how other Christians sects can deny science. It IS possible to agree with science, and at the same, agree with your faith. My mind is totally blown how people think it’s contradicting one another. *sigh*

    • Daniel Sachse

      Well, religion makes quite a number of outrageous claims about the universe. Some of those are unfalsifiable (which, mind you, doesn’t make them true), but others clearly have real-world implications that can be studied and falsified.

      Taking Catholicism as an example, what’s with the crackers and the wine? Isn’t it doctrine that these *literally* turn in to the body and blood of Christ? Shouldn’t one then be able to detect some sort of material difference before and after the consecration?

      Or don’t you believe that? But… are you then still a practicing Catholic?

  • Timelessapologist

    Science guys with corny bowties = Attacking Young Earth Creationists that advocate Bible-Belt Theology, because they fear Theists with REAL arguments.

    Give me Bill Nye against an ALvin Plantinga and watch Nye implode when he hears the EAAN. LOL keep attacking the weak ones!!!!  Just remember it doesn’t make Theism false when you play with the YEC’s and refute their arguments.

    • Daniel Sachse

      Platinga’s EAAN is the deceptive attempt to drag the reader or listener down into a difficult, yet entirely fabricated, logical argument. It’s a diversion, a smoke screen, disguising itself as “deep philosophy” or “sophisticated theology”.

      It’s bullshit, but it’s complicated, impressive-sounding bullshit.

      See for example here: http://specterofreason.blogspot.no/2012/02/some-objections-to-plantingas-eaan.html

  • Lynch Gerard

    Wasn’t there a guy with a PhD way back when who calculated the earth would eventually lose its gravitational pull with the continued use of elevators? I feel a little lighter just thinking of that.
    It seems clear that nature has an intelligent quantum “to thrive,” not only figuring out ways to adapt to changes, fight for survival, or defend against attack but also to allow for the innovation of mutations. There is this rather startling innate ability to maintain, strengthen, and enhance itself. Truly wondrous. Any person with an open mind and heart can not help but marvel at the ingenuity and diversity.
    And there has to be some sense of awe that in us this “quantum” appears to gain consciousness and a higher purpose, manifesting in such qualities as, yes, wonder and awe itself, an appreciation of beauty, our curiosity, creativity, and reason (to name a few). Nature getting to know itself and give voice to its being. Some may think of this as hubris–and that is a fatal idea.
    Recognizing life as truly wondrous is central, in my eyes, to continuing on as a species. Why? Because not doing so will reduce us to the ever-deadening weight of Scientism based on Evolutionary Theory’s implications, a joyless application of mindless survival instincts to all we think, say, and do, the sum of who we are. To me, social darwinism is the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the greatest promotion and excuse for vices ever concocted. “Vices?” you ask, with mocking indignation, “how very naive.” Where is good and evil in the wild you note, right? Is the predator evil? (Hmm, not enough time; just one last point.)
    Looking through a filter and working backwards to assign all we think, say, and do to conform to our starting premises is not science and in this case it is not humane as well.

  • Candlemann

    Georgia Purdom: 128 blinks in 80 seconds = 1 blink every .625 seconds

  • Jack Apple

    Wikipedia definition of engineering:

       Engineering is the science, skill, and profession of acquiring and applying
        scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and 
       also build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes.

    Irony…   A Creationist “scientist” (Ham) claims that an understanding of evolution is not necessary for “engineering” and comments on the lack of relevance between evolution and Bill Nye’s education, mechanical engineering (assuming that he is using this as an example)Perhaps it would help to explain that there’s a *relatively* new emerging engineering discipline called “Bio-Engineering” that leverages the understanding of evolution/selection (bio-mimetics) as one of many tools for ENGINEERING new capabilities into current life forms as well as developing completely new life forms… of which we *can* see evolve right before of our eyes.

    It’s obvious that to Ham, like most Creationists, biology is quite enigmatic.

  • usfcire

    Okay…so let me get this straight, we all agree that science has rules and we all agree that change happens over time.  How does evolution at the very beginning, the first living organism solve the fact that somehow thousands of molecules hundreds of thousands of atoms in size “organized” and cooperated together to sustain a life form.  To me this sounds like there is something more than just scientific law working.  After all science law would indicate that molecules of large size would quickly breakdown if not in an active form of polymerization, and would infact, with the presence of radical breakdown quite rapidly. 

    Creationist do not deny that a species will change overtime, and in some cases where separation of great distances will change both rapidly and to a point where habits of the species will change, case in point galapagos, however, there is a difference in a species subspeciating and a whole new organism emerging.  The biggest concern that a creationist sees with evolution is the lack of evidence of missing links that show the gradual change of species.  The fossil records do not show conclusively that this is the case.

    The other big issue that creationists have with evolution is that there is a number of organs in multicellular organisms and organelles in unicellular organisms that cannot be shown to have been gradually changed to present day.  Evolution contends that if it is not advantageous and it is benign, over time it will be eliminated because the organism has no advantage, hense why humans and many other primates do not have tails (according to evolutionists).  Eyes, ears, tongue, etc. fall into this catagory, as do the flagella, cilia, and pili.  There is no evidence that shows the formation of an eye over time, or that of the flagella, its just not there. 

    Both theories (evolution and creation) will have to be taken as a matter of faith.  For some, evolution is seen to have more tangible proof than creation, others see evolution as having too great of a lack in evidence to support evolution from the beginning of the first life until today.  Creationists see evolution on a micro scale (subspeciation not new organism development) and believe that the Biblical creation story plus the story of the fall and entrance of sin to the world explains the changes that can be observed today.

    Bill Nye is wrong about one thing.  There will be no end to this discussion.  At least there is no end unless there is a silencing of both sides either from a rogue meteor, or from the return of a Savior.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      How does evolution at the very beginning, the first living organism solve the fact that somehow thousands of molecules hundreds of thousands of atoms in size “organized” and cooperated together to sustain a life form.

      It doesn’t.  And nobody claims it does.

      The biggest concern that a creationist sees with evolution is the lack of evidence of missing links that show the gradual change of species.  The fossil records do not show conclusively that this is the case.

      Every single fossil is a ‘missing link’.  Besides which, the pattern of shared DNA shows our common descent.  The only ‘question’ is how different life forms diverged.

      There is no evidence that shows the formation of an eye over time

      Yes there is.  You can see eyes at various stages of evolution throughout the animal kingdom, including eyes that are superior to ours.

      Both theories (evolution and creation) will have to be taken as a matter of faith.  

      There is only one theory that explains the variety of life we have on this planet.  ‘creation’ isn’t a theory. There are many creation stories including Genesis.  None of them offer any predictions, are testable, or are falsifiable, or offer any explanation for how anything happens.

      • usfcire

         Rich, the point of the question is that there is no evidence that can justifiably state why life began on the planet to begin with.

        Every fossil not a missing link, just a remnant of what once was alive.  There are no fossils that show, to a degree of certainty, that the horse evolved from a guinea pig sized creature.  We have fossils of similar creatures of vary stature that show similarity to a horse, but nothing that shows that there was an in between, conclusively.

        No there is no evidence that shows the formation of a compound eye.  There is no compound eye without a lens or any of the other essential parts to make an eye work, nor is there fossil evidence to show that the suggestion in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc is true.  Nor does evolution explain how two very unrelated species could evolve to have eyes so similar, mammals and mollusks (squid, nautilus, etc).  These organisms would have evolved from a shared ancestor that had no eyes. 

        Please understand I am not refuting that natural selection exists and occurs, rather that natural selection alone does not explain the vast variety of life on this planet.  When you stated that the DNA similarities shows that there is a common decent that would be as appropriate as me stating that because molten lava and humans both share similarities in atomic structure that we share a common decent.  You I am sure would agree that evolution played not role in the decent of man from a rock, so why think that just because we share nucleic acids and certain structures with a bacterium that there must be common decent?

        I have no problem admitting that from the genesis creation there has been a great change that has occurred, significant variation even, but I do believe that the variety of life came from a creator, that an “evolutionary force” aka sin, has caused changed to occur, even the Bible explains that thorns arose after sin, and that things continue to change today.  So I would state, God created dogs, but at the time, one subspecies of dog, and after the course of sin and specified breeding habits we now have hundreds of varieties within the species.  The same goes for cats, cows, horses, goats, turtles, etc. Again, I do not endorse a grand theory of evolution that goes from single cell prokaryotes, to eukaryotes, to multicellular organisms.  Why is this idea so threatening to evolutionists?  Why does it have to be all or nothing, is there no room for a belief such as mine to be accepted in the scientific world?

        One thing I have always been curious about is if there is so much shared DNA and the power of evolution is so strong, why do we not see any mammals or really any multicellular animals have chlorophyll, to me the billions or at least millions of years that animals have been around, should have at least had some mutation where chlorophyll would be part of our genome.

        I get your point, but really glib responses don’t help discussion, it just closes doors.

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          is there no room for a belief such as mine to be accepted in the scientific world?

          The problem is that you aren’t providing evidence for creation.  You are providing evidence against evolution.  All refuted, but I don’t think there’s much point in going around in circles for a dozen posts here.

          Let’s for the sake of argument say all your arguments are iron clad.  You have pointed out a bunch of things evolution just can’t explain.  What then?  You have shown gaps, but you have nothing to fill them other than “it must be God”.  That’s not evidence.  There are other people who insist it’s a different God, or the same God a different way, or even aliens.  If you want to be part of the scientific world, you need to come up with your own explanation (scientific theory) to explain how things do work.

          That’s why Creationism/Intelligent Design are not scientific theories.  They don’t explain anything. 

    • John

      Thanks for posting a thoughtful, coherent comment.

      • Spuddie

        The ignorant leading the liars. There is no such thing as Creation theory. There are no good faith scientific arguments made by Creationists.

        When a creationist is called out on enough goofs, misrepresentations and phony arguments concerning science, they all fall back on stating their belief is entirely based on faith.

        Ucsfire, I give you 10 posts before you break down and either attack all science as being insufficient for the truth or declare your belief is based only on faith.

  • Joeallingham

    These arguments and discussions are embarrassing and pathetic. Science has nothing to do with whether a creationist or an evolutionist makes public statements about their beliefs or opinions. In fact this sort of nonsense should make us realize that we need to go back and research all of the facts available to us in this postmodern age. There is no need to react or become emotional about science. The facts and the truth out there. Let’s spend our energy finding them for a certainty, instead of wasting our resources on fruitless, and frankly childish, posturing.

  • Søren Steinbeck

    How…did this guy get a PhD from Brown? Interesting…

    My favorite is Kent Hovind. It’s too good to be true: (from Wiki)

    From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education. In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master’s degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, which no longer offers this program)

    He refuted so many PhD’s with his pseudo-science. He is sharp as a tack. And now he’s in jail. For tax evasion.

    Yes, I realize this is ad hominem. But I’m all right with it for now. Mayhaps I shall repent later…or maybe I will get a correspondence degree from a non-accredited school and call respected scientists who actually…you know…WORK in their fields, complete morons.

  • John

    What is sad is how lost most of the responders to this thread seem to be. Is there a critical thinker anywhere in here?
    Bill Nye insults creationists and says we need scientifically literate voters and engineers to build stuff, as if because you hold to some form of religious view of creationism you must be a bumbling fool.
    I’d say the 3 astronauts in Apollo 11 were damn good at what they did – you’ve got to be among the cream of the crop to be picked for such a mission.
    Armstrong was a Deist, Aldrin was a Presbyterian, and I don’t know about Collins but he wrote this in the CSM “The best ship to come down the line. God Bless Her. Michael Collins, CMP”
    Bill Nye should be ashamed of himself.

  • John

    and here’s one more.

    Bill did an interview with Sunita Williams on the Space Lab.
    I’m surprised that he didn’t make fun of her considering she might have some of those idiotic religious notions about life.
    “Among the personal items Williams took with her to the ISS were a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, a small figurine of the Hindu deity Ganesha and some samosas.”
    Sure Bill, people who hold to religious values have nothing to contribute to science.
    You should apologize.

  • Joeelm

    Not to mention, “Islamists believe it, so it must be true!”

  • tim

    Abiogenesis has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to form a cell are nothing but speculation with experiments that have failed abysmally!! Also intelligence is required to synthesize, manipulate and copy pre-existing cellular information! So even with chemists present, it cant be done! Homochirality is a disaster for naturalistic origins! Life comes from Life!!

    • Aimeejoe3

      Well let’s say you are right.   Can you then answer how life arose on earth?   It seems as if you understand a great deal, the language you use indicates this, however you simply state that “life arises from life” but you have not provided a reference that supports this.   Or have you done experiements to support this statement?

  • Jimmy Nye

    I also love how Bill Nye was clearly winging it and stating important thoughts that just happened to come to mind. Yet the other two were clearly reciting from a pre-written statement that they couldn’t even memorize properly. I’d love to hear a debate between Nye and the other two.

    And yes that is my real last name

  • Brian

    What an utter straw argument against this creationist video. If you’d like to pick apart an argument against Evolutionism, do so in a logical way. As in, don’t misrepresent people’s words, it’s impolite and poor argument.

    • Spuddie

      ” If you’d like to pick apart an argument against Evolutionism, do so in a logical way.”

      When a POV is inherently irrational, illogical and dishonest, it will not be possible. So you are asking for arguments from Creationists which will never exist

  • http://twitter.com/petedako Pete Dako

    After a stupefying trip to the Creation Museum, one sees that Ken Ham & his people aren’t  simply morons – in fact, just like everybody else in the Religion, Santa Claus, Wrestling  and Entertainment business they don’t believe it either. They perpetuate the fantasy so they can continue to make a buck profiting off morons who actually DO believe.

  • Collin L.

    I think that even though this web site is clearly an opinion based hub for atheists, you are creating an unnecessary stigma that goes along with persons who chose to believe in another idea that possesses a great many of roots in historical fact. I myself, am in consensus with the majority of the scientific community when it comes to most of the evolutionary belief, but I think that it is a theory that is incomplete and has many arguable variations. In the end, the “theory of evolution” is exactly what the name suggests: only a theory, not indisputable fact. In contrast, I think that the bible, (and other religious texts regarding the creation of humanity) are also flawed and should not not be thought of as an accurate set in stone, (no pun intended) historical depiction of the world and universe as a whole before the existence of man. That said, for me, the bible does fill a large void of theories regarding the creation of the universe and all matter. What still cannot be conclusively explained is the method of how the universe as a whole first came to be, how all matter suddenly came into existence out of nowhere. To conclude my argument i would like to leave you with the thought that science may not be the only explanation as to the reason that we exist (though it provides stable idea of how we became sentiant and extremely intelligent beings from the most basic of creatures.). You cannot prove or disprove everything with theories and experiments.

    • Spuddie

      If God is your default answer to unknown questions it means you are too lazy and ignorant to search for credible answers.

      “science may not be the only explanation as to the reason that we exist”

      If you are going to deny the credibility of science in general as you do in this statement., you have forsaken any right to use a scientific argument for the sake of making your point credible. You obviously would not appreciate actual answers, methods employed in science and just want to use it to give faith a patina of credibility it does not deserve.

  • Hermes60

    I have to ask both these so-called scientists – Which order of creation in Genesis to you accept (chapters 1 and 2)? Both cannot be correct at the same time.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X