Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A radio host’s lingering questions for Bill Nye, about how we know things


In the wake of Ham on Nye, radio host Steve Deace has some questions for science guy Nye:

1. You admitted during the debate you don’t know where human consciousness and intelligence comes from, yet several times you also urged the audience to maintain your viewpoint’s current status quo dominance of the culture for the good of society.

But if you don’t know where the consciousness and intelligence comes from that guides human affairs in the first place, how do you know that what your advocating for is what’s best for society? How do you know whether or not the source of your belief system is a benevolent or malevolent force? Not to mention if we don’t know where intelligence comes from, how do we even know we know what benevolent and malevolent means? If what you believe has led to some good in human society, how do you know that believing the God of the Bible is the source of consciousness and intelligence wouldn’t make for an even better society?

If you don’t know where consciousness or intelligence comes from, when do you know you’re right and when do you know you’re wrong? Furthermore, how do you know whether or not everything you believe is really a lie? Perhaps we don’t even exist, and you’re unconscious now like in the Matrix, and what you think is reality is not? More.

Scientism, the point of view that Nye, should espouse, if he knows what is good for him in he company he keeps,  holds that we have evolved so as not to understand that we are unconscious beings; that is just an illusion that spreads our selfish genes, as are all moral insights and beliefs about free will.

The view that everyone’s consciousness is an illusion doesn’t mean that no one rules; it means that whoever gets to the top does. Period. Scientism is to science what egotism is to ego.

And if Nye, or readers, have any doubts about that, recall that new research claims little or no difference between humans and animals.

That used to be a joke, a satirist’s point. Now it’s not. Which matters for civil liberties and a number of other questions.
The interesting thing is, as I have been recording in Science Fictions, the underlying naturalism (materialism) is actually seriously corroding the sciences. The multiverse is, of course, a good example of the trend, so is origin of life.

– O’Leary for News

See also: Is there a good reason to believe that life’s origin must be a fully natural event?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Lenoxus, It would have been best if Nye had shown what a viable scientific model is and then show how YEC is different. Lead by example- except Nye didn't have one. Joe
Both Nye and Ham agreed to a debate on the question of whether "creation" (in Answers In Genesis terms) is a viable scientific model. You can complain about the setup (and in a larger sense, that AiG exists in the first place and is so dedicated to the young-earth view), but you can't complain not that the two participants mostly stayed within that setup. Lenoxus
I agree Joe they spent more time on the age of the earth which is older than 6,000 years old than anything else. I noticed that ken Ham did repeat himself quiet a bit. Bill did a good job too but his arguments were not the greatest. This debate was predictable and kind of boring but Its one that can really reach out to the public. Jaceli123
Bill Nye didn't provide any evidence that supports materialism. He didn't provide any evidence that supports evolutionism. Sure he cast serious doubt on Ham's interpretation of the Bible, but that is about it. Joe

Leave a Reply