Posted on 08/27/2012 1:42:32 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
In a clip posted to online knowledge forum Big Think via YouTube, former children’s show host Bill Nye spoke out against the denial of evolution, saying such views harm young people especially and hamper scientific progress.
Nye, who hosted the educational show “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” which aired on PBS Kids from 1993 through 1998, made the statements in a clip posted online on Thursday, and has since been viewed over one million times. In the clip, Nye praises the United States for its contribution to technological innovation, but says that the denial of evolution is unique to the country.
“People still move to the United States. And that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science,” Nye said in the clip. “When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.
“Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You’re just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place,” he added.
Nye made a three-stop tour through New Hampshire earlier this summer to tout President Obama’s education policies while making a push for science and engineering programs. He has endorsed Obama’s reelection bid.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
They conflict. Which one do you believe?
I did not know there was a conflict however I will err on the side of safety.
I believe the Bible when it says that God created the earth in 7 days and it just looks like it is millions of years old. Just like a newly created Adam would look like he is twenty years or older.
We have to stop your dissent because it is harming the children!
So it isn’t a life until the moral police who don’t believe in a “God” concept decide it is a life? On what basis? Preserving a “right” to abortion on demand?
It is a simple question. And observable. Life deniers won’t admit it.
The problem with most evolution theories based on randomness is that they largely depend on mutation. The same people who insist that science should be based on objective observation fail to admit that the overwhelming majority of mutations make a creature less adaptable. I can see certain instances where, perhaps, a genetic predisposition to certain coloration or patterns may make an animal a better hunter or a more difficult prey, but most random mutations adversely impact the health of the organism.
Exactly. Put another way, when asked what is the mechanism for evolution, the reply is:
"The Survival of the Fittest"
Question: define "fittest" (this is a problem for evolutionists, because there is absolutely no way to determine the 'fittest' of a species beforehand: this only becomes clear after observing which members of the species manage to survive over time)
Hence the answer: "those who survive"
Thus, evolutionists are stating a meaningless tautology by actually saying that a central mechanism of evolution is "The survival of those who survive."
“Evolution does not explain Creation.” - Charles Darwin”
Was it supposed to?
“overwhelming majority”
Well, those words are key, aren’t they? all it takes is a “small minority” for evolution to work.
Just a heads up... The Hebrew word for “day” in Genesis is the same word for amount of time or space of time....
Evolution according to who’s theory? There are a lot of them out there.
silliness, survive = reproduce
those that survive to reproduce are the 'fittest'
We’ve seen species disappear. We’ve seen species that were thought to be extinct re-emerge in small numbers. We’ve seen plants and animals migrate (via hobbyists/scientists/shipping) to new regions of the world where sometimes they thrive.
New lifeforms springing up, not so much.
True enough, but in that regard, intelligent design is a more rational theory.
I can, for example, imagine the types of mutations that would slowly change a reptilian scale into a more feather-like structure, and give it's bearer certain advantages in flight characteristics. By that same token, even beneficial mutations typically come as a trade off and have some disadvantage for the advantage they provide. If it was only one individual, or even just one brood that bore the initial mutation, the chances of it/them surviving and succesfully transmitting the mutation would be more probable if they were "meant to."
“Evolution does not explain Creation.” - Charles Darwin
“Creation does not disprove evolution.” - Me
So, this guy hosted a kid’s show for five years, ending 14 years ago... Why is his opinion at all relevant?
Ask any 8 yr. old now who Bill Nye is.... I bet it is close to 1-5% know.
Yeah ... but that “evening and morning” thing puts a damper on any attempt to get away from a literal day.
Please demonstrate how life came from non-living and maybe I will accept that some of evolution is valid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.