News science education

If anyone cares, Bill Nye explains why God didn’t create the universe

Spread the love

Here: In other news, no one in North America is trying to shoot him. We just think he is dumb and boring.

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, and when you understand it you will know more about yourself and every other living thing on Earth. We are made of atoms that were blasted out of ancient stars, and so we are somehow at least one way that the universe knows itself. That fills me with reverence, and I hope it fills teachers with reverence. I hope that the passion associated with reverence they can imbue into their students.

A crank. So? Hey, it’s legal, but people shouldn’t be forced to listen to it.

12 Replies to “If anyone cares, Bill Nye explains why God didn’t create the universe

  1. 1
    ppolish says:

    Blasted out of stars. Bill must be a Geology Major. He is skipping a few steps. Needs to brush up on Genesis. Start there billy boy

  2. 2
    drc466 says:

    Well, we could start a 1000-comment post listing all the ways this is a ridiculous statement by Mr. Nye, but then he’d probably just pull a Black Knight and say “see how many objections they’ve posted and still can’t refute me? I must be on to something!”

  3. 3
    Learned Hand says:

    Hey, it’s legal, but people shouldn’t be forced to listen to it.

    Your article leaves out the part where people are forced to read his book or U.S. News and World Report. (Surely they can’t force people to read that in Canada!)

  4. 4
    Andre says:

    No learned hand, people are forced to learn this crap in school…..

  5. 5
    bb says:

    I think he’s a neo-Pantheist.

  6. 6
    Kajdron says:

    “We are made of atoms that were blasted out of ancient stars …”
    This reminds me of Ramandu saying:
    “Even in your world […] that is not what a star is but only what it is made of.”
    C. S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Andre @ 4

    No learned hand, people are forced to learn this crap in school…..

    Yes, but they aren’t required to believe it.

    Unlike many religious schools and colleges where you not only have to know the crap you have to believe it as well.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, since you apparently believe that ‘evolution crap’, can you prove that “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science” as Bill Nye claimed? I’ve recently learned that Evolution, far from being “the fundamental idea in all of life science” as Darwinists like to claim, is actually a ‘theologically based narrative gloss’ on science instead of being foundational to science

    Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013
    This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology.

    Darwin himself, in a private corespondence to Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, admitted that his ‘speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science’,,,

    Anti-Science Irony
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”,,,
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.

    One way to clearly see that Darwinism is not really a rigid science in any meaningful sense, but is instead a pseudo-science, is to see if neo-Darwinism has ever led to any profound breakthroughs in science. Dr. Wells points out at the 4:32 minute mark of the following video, Darwinism has NOT contributed anything to science.

    “Science Owes Nothing To Darwinism” – Jonathan Wells – video

    Dr. Wells is hardly alone. In spite of the fact that materialists/atheists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in biology, in a article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author finds neo-Darwinism to be superfluous.

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The late Dr. Skell is not alone in his analysis of the superfluous, ‘narrative gloss’, nature of Darwin’s theory

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    Even the staunch atheist Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, agrees that Darwinism does not guide biological research, (apparently not even his own research in helping discover the structure of DNA),

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988)

    At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is almost always falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a ‘narrative gloss’ in peer-reviewed literature:

    Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – video

    Here are a few more examples of Darwinists falsely attributing positive evidence to evolution, i.e. as a ‘narrative gloss’,,

    Like a Grandfather Clock: The Splicesome’s Intricate Dance of Parts – June 17, 2014
    Excerpt: Like a late-model SUV equipped with a buggy whip, this was an elegant design article carrying unnecessary baggage. Intelligent design did the work. Evolution, as a useless narrative gloss, adds mass but no force.

    It’s Optimal. It Must Have Evolved! – August 16, 2014
    Excerpt: These (optimal) solutions “have been arrived at” — by design? No; read the last sentence in the paper: “It is appealing that one might look to biology for insights into solutions of hard optimization problems, arrived at as a result of evolution within an information niche.” Evolution did it. Give evolution the engineering design award.

    Biologists Are Getting to Be Less Reticent About Using the Phrase “Design Principles” – November 28, 2014
    Excerpt: The word “design” appears 24 times in the paper. “Selection” appears twice, in the phrase “selective pressure” (one of them is just a repetition from the Abstract). Any form of the word “evolution” appears just once:,,,
    We see, therefore, that “design” references outnumber evolutionary references eight to one. We also find “machine” or “machinery” four times, “coding” or “encoding” 15 times, “information” (in terms of information to be processed) five times, “accurate” (in terms of sensing accuracy) 11 times, “precision” 29 times, “efficient” four times, and “optimal” or “optimum” 28 times. Taken together, these design words outnumber evolution words 40 to 1.
    Do the three passing references to evolution/selection add anything to the paper? One would expect to see it in the final Discussion section, but instead, we find these references to design:,,,
    The paper would lose nothing if its three passing references to evolution/selection were left on the cutting-room floor. All these scientists could do was look at the end product and decide, “Yep, it’s fit. It’s optimal.”

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, Darwinism is useless for medical diagnostics as well:

    Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations – Michael Egnor – neurosurgeon – June 2011

    In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past:

    Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked
    Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
    “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
    The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.

    Whereas, on the other hand, ID is ‘a driver of science’, instead of being merely a ‘theologically based narrative gloss’, or even ‘useless baggage’, as neo-Darwinism has been and currently is:

    “It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology.”
    – David Snoke – Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design – 2014

  10. 10
    Edward says:

    Given that we are completely accidental, I’m not sure where the reverence part comes in.

  11. 11
    tjguy says:

    Come on guys! Bill is the science guy you know.

    Don’t question science!

    If anyone knows, it should be Bill Nye the Science Guy!

  12. 12
    Robert Byers says:

    nye agreed to the biggest audience YEC ever got for our views. So he is respected for this by YEC.
    I understand he had a great science show as Ken Ham said and watched.
    He is some kind of mechanic I think but understands basics.
    so a jack of trade but master of none.
    he is wrong and too easily accepts ideas in subjects not open to real science investigation.
    origin matters are about past and gone events.
    not present working processes unless they can show it.

Leave a Reply