Bill Nye Encounters Ken Ham’s Ark

8 Replies to “Bill Nye Encounters Ken Ham’s Ark”

1. 1
   asauber says:

   July 12, 2016 at 6:27 am

   “Nye ‘The Science Guy’ told The Washington Post that his takeaway from the visit was that the kids were being ‘brainwashed’.”

   You mean the empty jacket with the bow tie who robotically regurgitates global warming propaganda is worried about brainwashing?

   Andrew
2. 2
   kairosfocus says:

   July 12, 2016 at 7:04 am

   H’mm, glass house, meet stone:

   [Richard Lewontin, NYRB Jan 1997:] . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [==> as in, “we” have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

   [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

   and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

   [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

   . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

   [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

   that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

   It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

   And, again:

   [US NSTA Board, July 2000:] The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . .

   [S]cience, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific [–> loaded word that cannot be properly backed up due to failure of demarcation arguments] methods, explanations, generalizations and products [–> declaration of intent to ideologically censor education materials] . . . .

   Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work [–> undermined by the question-begging ideological imposition and associated censorship] . . . .

   Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [–> question-begging false dichotomy, the proper contrast for empirical investigations is the natural (chance and/or necessity) vs the ART-ificial, through design] in the production of scientific knowledge.

   KF
3. 3
   tjguy says:

   July 12, 2016 at 8:35 am

   Dean @3

   “Protestors reenact heathen protests of Noah’s day but remain low on irony awareness.”

   So true!

   Fulfillment of biblical prophecy as well:

   “you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that SCOFFERS WILL COME IN THE LAST DAYS WITH SCOFFING, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”

   This almost sounds like he is referring to Lyell’s uniformitarianism:

   “For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”

   If so, it is clearly debunked here.
4. 4
   Tim says:

   July 12, 2016 at 9:37 am

   Nye claims, “You brainwash,” (To him it makes sense.)
   For, all kids need schooled in his evo-mat tents.
   He keeps himself relevant
   Like the room with its elephant,
   Losing his way in hyperbolic comments.

   Schools herd the kids (with the best of intents?)
   Into myopic views of the god called science,
   But those kids at Ham’s ark
   Didn’t get there by lark.
   Familia Primum! (Kids taught by the ‘rents.)
5. 5
   Truth Will Set You Free says:

   July 12, 2016 at 2:55 pm

   Nye is just another depressed and unsatisfied hater of religion, especially Christianity. He will always have an audience of foaming-at-the-mouth atheists, but who cares about them anyway? I sure don’t.
6. 6
   Robert Byers says:

   July 12, 2016 at 10:09 pm

   Funny. It is like the deniers in Noahs day. I presume all ID folks agree with Noahs launch! Just kidding.
   BRAINWASH. Is that the articulate word for someone expecting to reach the American public??
   You could put it other ways. In fact he is just saying teaching Christian doctrines, for many, is brainwashing!!
   Its not brainwashing. Its a articulation in spatial terms of a conclusion based on confidence in the historic ancient bible. Its a historic opinion and quite common still.
   At least AIG can say a celebrity came. STAND where Bill Nye stood kids. Watch your brains.
7. 7
   Davem says:

   July 13, 2016 at 3:28 am

   Are not almost all fossils found in sedimentary rock?
   The operative word here being “sedimentary”.
   Yet, we also find dinosaur footprints in stone.
   How can this be? Usually, when walking in mud, the next rain storm washes away any footprints. What caused these to bake into stone?
8. 8
   Robert Byers says:

   July 13, 2016 at 11:06 pm

   Davern
   Yes fossils/life must be preserved in a heap of sediment. So what probably happened is the dino steps were imprinted and covered instantly. Not washed away. It shows how powrrful the sediment loads were deposited from sudden distances.