Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[erowe1]

Bill Nye is extremely intelligent. He's just a statist. Being a statist doesn't making you an idiot, it makes you of a different opinion.

I agree. But it's not an excusable different opinion. The flaw behind statism isn't an intellectual one, it's a moral one.

 

[angelatc]

Indeed. Willing to make shit up out of thin air and totally disregard ethics, those pro-circ'ers are.

Ethics aren't science, are they? They're a consideration. If we assume that the science is correct (which I know you don't), then it becomes an ethical dilemma: is it better for parents to prevent possible a greater possible harm (both to the child and society) by imposing a certain lesser harm to the child?

If so, and again, assuming that vaccines are effective (which I know you don't believe either) is it ethically wrong to make a child cry by giving him an injection (a small amount of damage) even if you know that it's for the greater good of protecting the child from the increased possibility that he will not only get sick, but spreada the disease, later if he does not get the shots?

That's where ethics weigh in. They have policy implications, not scientific.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I agree. But it's not an excusable different opinion. The flaw behind statism isn't an intellectual one, it's a moral one.

Well, we know we can't force morality on people.

 

[erowe1]

Well, we know we can't force morality on people.

When people do something immoral against us, we have the right to use force to protect ourselves and others from them.

 

[jmdrake]

Bill Nye is extremely intelligent. He's just a statist. Being a statist doesn't making you an idiot, it makes you of a different opinion.

Not all statists believe that children should be "shepherded" away from information that disagrees with the "mainstream" view. That's what separates the "good" statists from idiots like Bill Nye.

Edit: And just because Bill Nye can regurgitate information in an entertaining way doesn't make "extremely intelligent". If he was extremely intelligent he would have figured out by now that global warming is BS and he wouldn't parrot the "Most scientists agree with me so I must be right" meme.

 

[tttppp]

No. Scientists are often very creative. Until I got a home study course on physics, I thought that science was very straight-forward and just followed the Scientific Method. But in reality, scientists will create ideas out of nothing and then go back to use method to test it. Einstein thought up Relativity in his head and was guided at first entirely by aesthetics.

Einstein was an exception though. There are not many scientists working on big things. Typically scientists work on things that will only make a small difference to us.

 

[erowe1]

No. Scientists are often very creative. Until I got a home study course on physics, I thought that science was very straight-forward and just followed the Scientific Method. But in reality, scientists will create ideas out of nothing and then go back to use method to test it. Einstein thought up Relativity in his head and was guided at first entirely by aesthetics.

Actually, before Einstein did that there were experiments proving that the speed of light never changes relative to the observer, no matter what the motion of the observer is. That empirical fact was the foundation on which Einstein did his thought experiments.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

When people do something immoral against us, we have the right to use force to protect ourselves and others from them.

What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?

 

[erowe1]

What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?

It's not that he has done something to me, it's that he advocates doing something to me. That's what statism is.

Whether he's the tyrant himself is beside the point. When a tyrant behaves immorally according to Nye's prescription, we have a right to use force to protect ourselves.

 

[tttppp]

What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?

The only problem I have with him is it seems he's advocating for the government to decide what to teach kids. The government should stay out of education and privatize it. Parents and kids should be able to choose what the kids will learn.

 

[QuickZ06]

Evolution is a scientific theory whether you like it or not.

Ok then.

You don't believe evolution is a scientific theory? What kind of a theory would it be then?

I think it is just a theory, going back to what I re said about science being hijacked for special interests and the dumbing down of society.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

I dont believe there is any "facts" about it at all, just theories.

 

[QuickZ06]

If I am wrong on my knowledge of scientific theory I am all for being educated and all for you sharing your ideas on the subject matter. And please lets keep this civil.

 

[jmdrake]

What has Bill Nye done to you other than having a difference of opinion?

He's advocating that others not be allowed to share their opinions. Pay attention to the language. It's illegal to give children information that the government deems is "not appropriate" for them. One thing the Chik-fil-a fiasco showed is that there are government actors ready to use the force of the law to silence dissenting opinions. Today creationism is kept out of public schools. But years from now will a program with view that Mr. Nye finds "unscientific" have to carry a "Warning! The following program includes material that may not be appropriate for children" intro? I thought science was about getting kids to think for themselves as opposed to being clones of state approved thought?

 

[Nirvikalpa]

If I am wrong on my knowledge of scientific theory I am all for being educated and all for you sharing your ideas on the subject matter. And please lets keep this civil.

Ok, I shall start:

According to you, a "scientific theory" is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity.
Tragopogon miscellus evolution.
Scientists force evolution of caterpillars.
E. coli make major evolutionary shift in lab, before scientists eyes.

 

[fisharmor]

Did we watch different videos?

Bill Nye says "don't do it". Don't deny evolution in front of your kids, because then they won't be able to become engineers (like that makes any fucking sense).
The rest of society also says "don't let your kids use f-bombs".
If I had heard all the f-bombs and turned off the song last night to protect her, my daughter would not have demonstrated, finally, some modicum of musical ability.
If I don't deny evolution in front of her, then she's never going to have an opportunity to question both it AND creationism.

Perhaps I was being a little esoteric but the idea is the same for me. You either hide your delicate hot-house flower under a rock, or you give your kid all the information, state your own opinion, and let the kid be an individual with an individual opinion.

This idea isn't going to die out, Bill, because people like you are attempting to ram a competing idea down everyone's throat.
I clearly remember being at the dinner table and listening to my dad tell my older brother there was no way in hell that he was going to an Ozzy Osbourne concert (shortly after the bat incident) because that was sick.
Well now he has another of his kids playing that guy's music for his 5-year-old grandaughter.

If you try to stamp out creationism, it's going to flourish. You're giving it attention. Most creationists actually don't go picking fights over evolution being crap. That means they're going to win.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Ethics aren't science, are they? They're a consideration. If we assume that the science is correct (which I know you don't), then it becomes an ethical dilemma: is it better for parents to prevent possible a greater possible harm (both to the child and society) by imposing a certain lesser harm to the child?

If so, and again, assuming that vaccines are effective (which I know you don't believe either) is it ethically wrong to make a child cry by giving him an injection (a small amount of damage) even if you know that it's for the greater good of protecting the child from the increased possibility that he will not only get sick, but spreada the disease, later if he does not get the shots?

That's where ethics weigh in. They have policy implications, not scientific.

Ethics are and always have been intertwined with science. The known history of science tells us this. Especially in medical science (see Hippocrates and the Hipporatic Oath). History of science was a rather boring class, but I picked up a few things.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, before Einstein did that there were experiments proving that the speed of light never changes relative to the observer, no matter what the motion of the observer is. That empirical fact was the foundation on which Einstein did his thought experiments.

This is true, thanks for correcting me. I believe my point is still correct, though-some science does follow the scientific method very strictly, but some does not. At least, this is my understanding from the physics lectures I've observed thus far.

 

[Dr.3D]

Why can't evolution be thought of as being the tool God used to bring about what we now have as life on Earth? Creation could very well have happened in six twenty-four hour days.

Those who want to know how this could be, should watch this one hour video.
[video=google;2846284361709250986]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2846284361709250986[/video]

Skeptics beware, the author of this video, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, has degrees in the following.
B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T.
PhD Earth Sciences and Physics, M.I.T.

So you can't say he doesn't know anything about science.

 

[Natural Citizen]

8/30/2012 - In 5 minutes --- First Hour: Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," talks about why he believes creationism is not good for kids. Be there or be square.

http://www.newsradioklbj.com/Other/Stream.html

Ought to be a hoot.

Recap of the discussion -- First hour guest, Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," argued that teaching creationism to children in school is not appropriate (a video in which he expounded on this has been seen over 2 million times). Creationism is not science, and "the idea that there is no such thing as evolution, that an unknowable deity created everything that you see around you in just 100 centuries," is simply wrong on a scientific basis, he stated.


He also expressed the importance of considering the position of your elected and future elected representatives on science. Can't say that I disagree with him on that.

 

[QuickZ06]

Ok, I shall start:

According to you, a "scientific theory" is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity.

You are a scientist correct?

Im not really that up to speed on all of those but I can give the first one a try. So this was done in a lab of course, has this ever been examined in the real world? I am thinking the scientist might have acted as an intelligent designer?

Also in that third link the title really make me go wtf...Scientists force evolution in the lab.

Also do you believe in evolution?