Monday, January 27, 2014

Bill Nye forgets about Creationists like Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, ...



Bill Nye discusses his upcoming debate with Ken Ham. Ham is a protestant fundamentalist and young earth creationist.

Of course, I'm rooting for Ham, and he'll clean Nye's clock, as Christians invariably do when they debate atheists.

Ham and I come from quite different theological perspectives, but he's a brother in Christ, and that covers a multitude of differences.

Nye is one of the duller knives in the atheist drawer. He describes his fear (at about 3:10) that creationism will create "a generation of science students who don't believe in science", which, he is convinced, will send American science into the abyss.

Note to Bill: the Scientific Revolution was a creationist project-- nearly all of the great scientists of the 16th to 18th century were creationists of one sort or another. None had any use for atheism, of which Newton quipped:
"Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors"
America is, and has been for a couple of centuries, the most creationist nation in the West, and also decisively leads the West in science.

Atheist culture, on the other hand, is notorious for it's scientific sterility. Count the Nobel Prizes from the Soviet bloc, versus the Christian West, during the 20th century.

The "atheist/creationist-future of science" experiment has already been run, with a vengeance.

The results aren't close. Christianity-- actually creationism of one sort or another since the 16th century-- is the greatest engine of science mankind has ever known.

I hope Ham brings it up when Nye, predictably, laments the creationist influence-- i.e. the influence of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, et al--  on science. 

40 comments:

  1. Of course, I'm rooting for Ham

    Not surprising you would side with the crook.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see this one is going to be a fight.

    I don't agree with young earth creationists. I think Nye chose this guy because he's the easiest to defeat. Obviously, the earth is older than 10,000 years.

    I think the topic of debate should be evolution: true or false?

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Ben, the debate is headlined Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins?

      So, this one isn't about a critique of evolution, it is about a positive model of the world that. A YEC model. Pure fantasy.

      Hoo

      Delete
  3. If science followed Newton's advice, we wouldn't be debating "evolution is settled science"

    "As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations."

    Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

    from Query 31 of Opticks (London, 1704)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Egnor: Bill Nye forgets about Creationists like Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, ...

    THere is a difference between these guys and the modern-day creationists. The former didn't get their science from the Bible.

    But hey, you are free to root for the stupid guys. They wear your colors, so go ahead! :)

    Hoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Philosophically there is no "huge difference," and that is the point. The fact that atheists can merrily go along, vacuously spouting "science deniers," about creationists without realizing they are including the greatest scientists of all time as "science deniers," says everything anyone needs to know about the atheist commitment to their secular religion and the inability of those atheists to think past the end of their noses. And then, when it's revealed how stupid you sound, to say, "well those creationists are different than these creationists, so the point stands," is gut busting hilarious and reveals that no matter what the evidence is, atheists will contort logic into a pretzel to live with themselves.

      Delete
    2. The difference is crucial. Newton et al. did not base their scientific theories on the Bible, whereas modern-day creationists do. If that's not a huge difference for you, I don't know what is.

      Hoo

      Delete
  5. I once saw a video of Ham lecturing an auditorium of young children that if the Bible and science differ, the science is wrong. The kids that believe him and take his message to heart will almost certainly never be scientists, and probably remain scientifically illiterate their entire lives. He may as well be giving them lobotomies.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 27, 2014 at 7:45 AM

    As a bantamweight grudge match, this should be interesting. The little guys are always the scrappiest. But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Ham. Any ectomorph who wears a bow tie to a debate and worries that certain types of The Benighted "are still among us" loses.

    Bill Nye should hang with his homies, Mr Rogers and Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, grandpa, I take it that you think YEC is a viable model of origins?

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 27, 2014 at 7:59 AM

      Tell me, boy, what words of mine you used to derive that brilliant insight.

      Delete
    3. These: "But if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Ham."

      Unless of course you don't know what the debate is about. Here is a clue, gramps. The debate's topic is Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins?

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. You’re betting on Ham. idiot.

      -KW

      Delete
    5. [So, grandpa, I take it that you think YEC is a viable model of origins?]

      Is atheism a viable model of origins?

      I would suggest not. The theory that the earth is balanced on an infinite stack of turtles is more viable than atheism.

      Infinite reptilian regression is more defensible logically than emergence of everything from nothing.

      Delete
    6. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 27, 2014 at 8:04 AM

      Now I see the problem. There was another sentence - the next sentence, in fact - that you didn't get to, child: "Any ectomorph who wears a bow tie to a debate and worries that certain types of The Benighted 'are still among us' loses."

      You are a whiz-bang scholar, kid!

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 27, 2014 at 8:06 AM

      Doc: "Is atheism a viable model of origins?"

      Not by itself, no. You need aliens.

      Delete
    8. Egnor: Is atheism a viable model of origins?

      This is an attempt at obfuscation, Egnor, and you know it.

      The subject of the debate isn't atheism, it's the creation model of the world's origin as understood by YECs. It's obvious to any reasonably educated observer that the YEC model isn't viable. Anyone siding with Ken Ham either doesn't understand what the question is or is a complete idiot.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. Gramps, what's your answer to the question that headlines the debate? Is Creation a viable model of Origins? Yes or no?

      Hoo

      Delete
    10. [The subject of the debate isn't atheism, it's the creation model of the world's origin as understood by YECs.]

      You guys are caricatures of yourselves. You assert that in a debate between an atheist and a creationist about origins, discussion of the atheist viewpoint is off limits.

      It hurts to laugh so hard.

      Delete
    11. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 27, 2014 at 9:01 AM

      Hoots: "Is Creation a viable model of Origins? Yes or no?"

      Well, given that there are different views among people who advocate a creationist view ("model"), you'll need to be more specific.

      But if you're speaking specifically of YEC, then no.

      That's not really the story here, though. This debate isn't going to change anyone's mind. In a debate, Hoots, the winner is not always "right". In fact, neither side may be "right".

      Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.
      --- Wiki: Debate

      That's why ectomorphs in funny bow ties never win. :-)

      Delete
    12. Egnor: You guys are caricatures of yourselves. You assert that in a debate between an atheist and a creationist about origins, discussion of the atheist viewpoint is off limits.

      Gramps Boggs: Well, given that there are different views among people who advocate a creationist view ("model"), you'll need to be more specific.

      You, guys, can run, but you can't hide. It's Ken Ham. He's a YEC. He's not going to defend an old-Earth model. It's a 6,000-years-old world. It's Adam made from scratch and Eve made from his rib. It's teh Flood.

      You're betting on Ken Ham. Go ahead, defend his model. LOL.

      Hoo

      Delete
    13. Anything with Bill Nye is bound to be boring, repetitive, self refuting, lame brained positivism.
      It makes not a whiff of difference to me if the other guy was a YEC, a new ager, a Hindu,a shaman, or even the cookie monster - if he's not a materialist he will be more interesting and engaging than Nye.

      Delete
    14. YEC is both right and wrong. It's right that the universe was created ex-niliho and that God created it.

      It's wrong that it was created 6000 years ago, and it's wrong on many metaphysical accounts (it tends to a mechanical, rather than hylemorphic, view of nature, etc)

      YEC is certainly much closer to truth than atheism. The assertion that the universe is uncreated is gibberish.

      Delete
    15. The subject of the debate is not the general approach to origins. It's the creation model of origins. The creation model is specific enough to make falsifiable claims. These claims have been falsified. The model isn't viable. End of story.

      Hoo

      Delete
  7. Egnor:

    Atheist culture, on the other hand, is notorious for it's scientific sterility. Count the Nobel Prizes from the Soviet bloc, versus the Christian West, during the 20th century.

    What percentage of Nobel Prize winners was Christian? I would guess quite a bit smaller than the percentage of atheists.

    Percentages are fun!

    % Catholics US general population - 25%
    % Atheists US general population - 5%

    % Catholics US prison population - 39%
    % Atheists US prison population - 0.2%

    I guess atheists are just too smart to get caught by the cops.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The roots of science long predate Christianity, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks, one of whom actually built a steam engine. The Greeks were very wise but they did not have the shoulders of giants to stand upon, and so never quite hit upon the methodologies that today we call science; though they came up with an atomic theory of matter and even knocked around notions of evolution, though not the correct theory of descent with modification. That fact that Newton et al were theists mean absolutely nothing. It bears no relation on whether theism is true or false. So, this is more of your gibberish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's also worth noting that the proto-scientific ancient Greeks, long before Christ allegedly lived, measured the diameter of the earth to a startling degree of accuracy, and the distance to the moon. One of the ancient Greeks came up with the heliocentric theory, but one of your heroes, Aristotle, discouraged belief in heliocentrism, thus setting back science for centuries, and playing the role ... wait for it! ... of the church vis a vis Galileo. So much for science deriving from Christianity. Do you really believe the crap you write, or are you just a standard-issue liar for Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  10. BTW, Newton also devoted a great amount of his time to ... alchemy. Well, I guess if Newton believed in God then God must exist, and if Newton believed in alchemy then alchemy must be true! Nice logic there, Egnore!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Interesting, Egnore, how you agree that Ham is wrong that the world was created 6,000 years ago. So I guess insofar as Ham is able to get people to believe this ridiculous notion, then he is harming science, no? Glad you agree that Ham harms science! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also, Egnore, are you unaware that both the Nazis and Soviets opposed evolutionary theory? Hitler (a Christian) insisted on a Master Race, which concept is utterly inconsistent with evolutionary theory (and no, eugenics did not derive from Darwin). The Soviets practiced Lysenkoism, totally at odds with Darwin and with disastrous results. Finally, the Western Nobels for science go mostly to atheist scientists, since most scientists today are atheists and don't give a whit about Newton's beliefs in God or alchemy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nazism was applied Darwinism, and Lysenko embraced Larmarkian genetics, rather than Mendelian genetics.

      The commies had problems with Social Darwinism because of the capitalist subtext, but Marx and Engels were admirers of Darwin and obviously the commies were atheists to the core.

      Delete
  13. Just to be clear, the above post was in response to this balderdash from you: "Atheist culture, on the other hand, is notorious for it's scientific sterility. Count the Nobel Prizes from the Soviet bloc, versus the Christian West, during the 20th century."

    ReplyDelete
  14. This actually sounds like a fun debate. Bring popcorn and make a party of it.

    It's interesting that the debate is framed in this way - Ham is arguing a positive case for a "Creation model".

    I'm honestly not sure what that entails. I'll be disappointed if all Ham does is critique evolutionary accounts. He will likely spend time on the "6,000 year problem" by arguing for carbon dating's alleged fallibility and problems with measuring distance w/ the speed of light... or something.

    As for Nye, I'm not sure what he'll do. I've never heard Nye spew atheism like Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, et al. He will probably talk about evolution and the evidence for it. Expecting a sort of "soft-atheism" from him. "The Bible is a beautiful series of myths, but they aren't true in a scientific sense". That kind of rhetoric.

    10 bucks says he goes for the "different cultures have different creation myths and you don't believe any of those but your own!" angle.

    Anyone else want to weigh in on debate predictions?

    - Curio

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Nye can stay on topic and hammer at the silly YEC model.

      Hoo

      Delete
    2. The Egnorant One: "Nazism was applied Darwinism..." That's a lie. But here's the real interesting point: Even if Nazism were "applied Darwinism," which it wasn't, this alleged "fact" has no bearing on whether the theory of evolution is true. Surely you can't be so dumb as to subscribe to the fallacy of the argument to negative consequences? But whatever, you're someone who fails to understand that today's Republican Party is the magnet for the racists who used to belong to the Democratic Party.

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse:

      You're quite right that the Nazi-Darwinism connection has no bearing on the truth of Darwin's TOE.

      But it has enormous bearing on the priority of fighting Darwin's theory if it is false, which it is. Darwin's theory is a lie, and it is a lie with consequences.

      Delete
    4. You need to first demonstrate that evolutionary biology (which originated with Darwin's theory but has gone way beyond it) is false. So far you haven't.

      There was one lame attempt to do so that only revealed your complete misunderstanding of kin selection.

      Hoo

      Delete
    5. Umm unguided evolution can't be tested- it doesn't make any predictions. It is useless.

      Delete
  15. Oh brother. Where to start with this video and who the who is the reporter.
    It was the protestant reformation that raised the general intellectual mean of the common people in Northern Europe. Especially from the puritan/Evangelical wing which resulted in the British civilization prevailing in intelligence.
    We created modern science. the rest just followed later although also their credit.
    Its not about a few top dogs but a general investigation and use of what is called science.

    The dismissing of creationism is a dismissing of bible believing Christianity in whole or part.
    It is a attack upon religion as they present it.
    They should only say they don't accept some christians beliefs in the bible.
    Not the poor public relations of shock and awe that anyone believes in Genesis. What about the virgin birth? Are these folks saying its not scientifically possible and so NOT TRUE?!
    Then he attacks money issues of Ham's projects. Its like a underhand sabotage attempt. What does he care? i thought he was defending America from science denial! Now its about theme parks!
    What is these peoples motives?
    They are demanding america agree with evolution or else!
    Its absurd and weirder then that!
    He's not a scientist he pleads!! Agreed. The is nothing scientific about evolution! He can't recognize it.!
    He shows, by his poor ability to think fast on his feet, that these evolutionists are trying to destroy or stop creationism and they are not interested in just defending thier evolution.
    They really are breaking the historical social contract of not publically campaigning against fellow americans religious beliefs.
    They are being bigoted against Christian beliefs for many.
    Thery are not simply defending old man Darwin.
    This is a great chance for YEC creationists to highlight the bad guys agendas.
    Ham should just concentrate and not be diverted by this rambler mechanic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bill Nye thinks that Ken Ham's position is the fixity of species, ie no change allowed. He is going to eat it when Ham explains that baraminology allows for speciation.

    ReplyDelete