Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. According to Bill Nye, aka "the science guy," if grownups want to "deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them." Don't miss new Big Think videos! Subscribe by clicking here: -- Transcript: Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, we're the world's most advanced technological—I mean, you could say Japan—but generally, the United States is where most of the innovations still happens. People still move to the United States. And that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place. As my old professor, Carl Sagan, said, "When you're in love you want to tell the world." So, once in a while I get people that really—or that claim—they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is "Well, why not? Really, why not?" Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent. And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems. It's just really hard a thing, it's really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I'm sure, will be, it just won't exist. There's no evidence for it. Directed / Produced by Jonathan Fowler and Elizabeth Rodd


Nicholas Christie-Blick: Those who disagree with anything I have posted are welcome to check the scientific literature. Try Google Scholar or PubMed. No need to take my word for it. My credentials are also on the web. Where are yours?

[That's right. You have no credentials, and nothing of relevance to contribute. Hence the silly insults.]

Nicholas Christie-Blick: Of all the nonsense creationists talk, claims about so-called polystrate fossils are truly among the most foolish.

Fossil trees are very rarely preserved in the geological record precisely because the wood tends to rot before burial. However, the rate at which sediment accumulates is known to vary through many orders of magnitude. That's an observation, not a guess or an assumption. Very occasionally, and under specific conditions, it is possible for trees to become buried rapidly enough to be preserved. The style of preservation in a lot of the examples I have seen is that the wood becomes silicified (replaced by SiO2).

None of the examples has anything whatever to do with a global flood. The idea that one example of rapid sedimentation implies that all sedimentation is rapid is akin to claiming that all commercial shipping was launched within the past week because the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage.

So no, Melvin. Polystrate fossils don't 'destroy' anything. Is it possible, do you think, that it might eventually sink in that you're on the wrong track? The flood idea is incompatible with all of Earth science. The wild assertions you repeatedly attempt to peddle have no bearing on the actual science. All of them have been debunked many times.

Danger Willyrobinson: "Just when I thought that it couldn’t get any more bizarre (previous post), I oblige with a whole new level of Dunning-Kruger craziness."_____The deluded know it all

God Rules: Enjoy today's devotional: The Rightful Place of Angels

In our day, angels have become a pretty big thing. In fact, there are some fairly well-known personalities today talking about having their personal angel and needing to “contact your angel.”

I believe in angels because the Bible clearly talks about them, but angels have a rightful place, which Paul addresses in Colossians 2:18–19,

Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

Paul is telling us, “If you become so preoccupied with angels that you let go of the head, Jesus Christ, you are off the rails!” In fact, if you are preoccupied with angels in such a way that it takes you away from Jesus Christ, I’m telling you, you are in error. The body grows; the body is nourished; we get our life and direction from the head, Jesus Christ.

If God wants to have an angel intervene in my life, that is wonderful. But I don’t need to contact my angel because I have constant communion with the Son of God, who, as we learned yesterday, is superior to angels!

Jesus is the One who created the universe! He is our Lord and our Savior. He is the Vine, we are the branch. We have communion with Him. Why would we want to contact an angel when we can contact the Son of God whom angels fall down and worship!

Angels are under the lordship of Jesus. That is their rightful place.

Our resources:

God Rules: Today's Creation Moment
Tiles And Glue Make Fine Mother-Of-Pearl
Psalm 127:1
“Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”
The mother-of-pearl found in abalone shells is both beautiful and exceptionally strong. Scientists wanted to find out how the shell formed in the hope that they could discover the secret of the shell’s strength.
Researchers invented a clever way to do this, using only a couple of abalones growing in saltwater tanks. They placed a number of glass slides on the growing abalone shells. The new shell material thus formed on the glass slides as the abalones grew. Researchers removed a slide at intervals to study it using an electron microscope, leaving the remaining slides to collect more shell material. The microscope showed the well-known six-sided calcium carbonate tiles stacked like bricks. These tiles are cemented together with a protein. However, they found that the protein “cement” did not continue right to the edges of the stacks of “tiles.” Unlike normal cement, the protein “cement” stretches, and this permits the stacks to slide sideways rather than shattering when, say, a predator tries to break the shell. The shell can thus absorb a great deal of force without breaking, and this is the secret of its strength.
The ordered structure of the abalone shell is difficult to explain as the result of unordered chance. The intricate genius of not gluing the edges of the stacked tiles to add strength to this design points directly to our Creator.
Father, I rejoice that You do all things well. Help me to build my life on Your plan, which I read about in Scripture. Amen.

Nicholas Christie-Blick: Just when you thought that it couldn’t get any more bizarre (previous post), Melvin obliges with a whole new level of Dunning-Kruger craziness.

“Andrew Snelling confirms the veracity of Scripture and delivers a death blow to atheism.”

Let’s take a look at Snelling’s five paragraphs with no data – a contribution that Melvin insists overturns all of Earth science.

The first thing you need to know is that there is very little sediment on the seafloor for a very good reason. The area of seafloor of a given age drops off approximately linearly from a contemporary value of 3 km^2 per year to near zero for 185 million-year-old crust as a result of subduction. The older the crust, the more likely it is to have been returned to the Earth’s mantle (T.W. Becker et al., 2009: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 278, 233-242, Fig. 1b).

The average age of the ocean crust therefore is about one-third of its maximum age (~60 million years). Much of that crust is distant from continents. The sediment cover is predictably thin. When Snelling talks in paragraph one of sediments accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, he appears to be unaware that there is no oceanic crust older than about 185 million years. How could a guy with a PhD in Earth science know nothing of plate tectonics?

In paragraph two, Snelling mentions the average thickness of seafloor sediment (400 m). This estimate is close to the most recent estimate (P. Olson et al., 2016: GGG, 17, 1349-1369), and includes carbonate and organic sediment not derived from the continents.

The difficulty with Snelling’s reasoning is that the vast bulk of sediment eroded from the continents winds up on thinned continental crust at rifted continental margins, and NOT on ocean crust. So the average thickness of oceanic sediment is irrelevant. That detail is also omitted from Snelling’s Fig. 1, a mash-up of a convergent plate boundary and the profile of a rifted continental margin omitting virtually all of the many kilometers of sediment known to be present at depth from geophysical data and direct drilling. (Check Fig. 1a of Olson et al., 2016.)

In paragraph four, Snelling makes the inevitable segue to the 'Genesis Flood cataclysm', ignoring the mountains of data from continental margins that are wholly incompatible with the flood scenario. I have worked some of those data myself. One example: Petroleum companies, which extract much of the world’s oil and gas from continental margin deposits appreciate that it takes in the order of tens of millions to 200 million years to generate petroleum from buried organic matter. Were the sediments no more than a few thousand years old, those companies would be out of business. Old Earth science apparently works just fine in multinational corporations, many of which are headquartered within the Bible belt.

In his final paragraph, Snelling turns to what he calls ‘rescuing devices’. Apparently, ‘those who advocate an old earth insist that the seafloor sediments must have accumulated at a much slower rate in the past’. There is no basis for this assertion other than the tendency for geologically measured rates to appear slower than instantaneous rates as a result of the integration of gaps. It's a resolution effect, and not a then vs now effect. The overall rate at which sediment accumulates is comparable at all continental margins (initially rapid and slowing down with time) because it is controlled by the rate at which the margin subsides. This is exactly as Snelling indicates further along in the text, but for a completely different reason. No need to get into those details here. In short, Snelling is just making it up as he goes.

Bottom line: Does Snelling's essay confirm the veracity of Scripture and deliver a death blow to atheism? No. The whole thing is nonsense because Snelling appears not to understand the first thing about sedimentation and global tectonics. The flood scenario is PRECLUDED by the published literature that he has never read. What about atheism? Again, Melvin is confused. Science depends on evidence. Period. It has nothing to do with atheism. In short, this example is exactly like all of Melvin's examples: it fails miserably to make the case for anything.

jebstuart: Miss giggles the old spinster, now denies the fossil sequence means anything, yet she denies to the point of tears that she's a young earther. LOL.

интеллектуальные победы дизайн: +Christie-Blick: The DNA mutations upon which natural selection works to supposedly create new species
are accidental, chance, haphazard, random, and UNPREDICTABLE molecular events.
Your 'theory' is mired in 🎲 randomness. 🎲

Nuclear Fallout: The microbiologist James A. Shapiro recognizes the processing of information in the cell, and I quote, "There is no Cartesian dualism in the E. coli (or any other) cell. In other words,, no dedicated information molecules exist separately from operation molecules. All classes of molecule (proteins, nucleic acids, small molecules) participate in sensing, information transfer, and information processing, and many of them perform other functions as well (such as transport and catalysis)." [Evolution: A View From The 21st Century]
Even at the level of complexity of an E. coli bacterium, the cell demonstrates the capacity of sensation, cognition, and information processing that transcends the molecular chemical components that merely define it physically: ”Analysis of cellular processes such as metabolism, regulation of protein synthesis, and DNA repair established that bacteria continually monitor their external and internal environments and COMPUTE FUNCTIONAL OUTPUTS based on information provided by their sensory apparatus.” [doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.09.010]

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE: “Some stunning upsets in conventional thinking about evolution have hit the news in rapid succession, threatening Darwin’s famous tree icon. Neo-Darwinism did not make cephalopods what they are. These highly intelligent and well-adapted animals edited their own genes, so what possible need do they have for other forms of adaptive evolution — presumably the blind, random, unguided kind? What does editing imply?

News from the University of Chicago’s Marine Biological Laboratory implies that cephalopods were wise to choose the RNA editing bargain. “Mutation is usually thought of as the currency of natural selection, and these animals are suppressing that to maintain recoding flexibility at the RNA level,” says biologist Joshua Rosenthal. The lab “identified tens of thousands of evolutionarily conserved RNA recoding sites in this class of cephalopods, called coleoid.” Evolutionarily conserved is a euphemism for stability — for non-evolution — over long periods of time.

Those squid are smart, all right: they seem to be able to prevent Darwinian evolution! So far, news sources such as New Scientist are just calling this “a special kind of evolution” based on RNA editing instead of DNA mutations. They’re restricting the phenomenon to squid, octopuses and cuttlefish. But usually when a new process is discovered in one group, scientists — now alerted to it — start finding it in other groups, too. The implications for Darwin’s tree of life are clear. If animals are able to “defy genetics’ ‘central dogma’” ( and take evolution into their own hands, no wonder the tree managers are scrambling.

Check out this talking point: “Cephalopods probably chose to take this RNA bargain over genome evolution, and maybe vertebrates made the other choice — they preferred genome evolution over editing.” They chose? That sounds like intelligent design by the spirits of cephalopods, playing their own evolutionary strategy against the rules of the game established by Darwin. A better model would be pre-programmed software for stability in a dynamic environment.”

Nuclear Fallout: More problems for abiogenesis, since all living, metabolizing, dividing cells that exist on Earth can only synthesize DNA by the highly coordinated actions of several catalytic, ATP-powered enzymes (Helicase, Primase, DNA Polymerase I, III, Ligase, etc) and yet these highly specified catalytic enzymes can only be synthesized from the specified digital genomic information contained within DNA. The cell cycle proceeding to cell division uses additional catalytic enzymes (Telomerase, Nuclease, Topoisomerase) that AGAIN need to be specified from the digital genomic information in the cell's DNA.

A blind, spontaneous, natural 🦄fairy tale🦄 hypothesis for life's origins on Earth has to get around the CATCH 22 PARADOX that you need DNA to make protein enzymes, while at the same time needing protein enzymes to make DNA.
That's game over, unless you're a willfully ignorant, stubborn materialist who won't dare leave the little bubble of her prebiotic fantasies about one-trick pony ribozymes, Miller-Urey sludge, and mineral geochemistry masquerading as cellular metabolism.

Dragon Slayer: I don't speak for Christianity, so run and dodge, Bell. You haven't outlined the prebiotic synthesis of DNA.
That is not an argument. It's a simple fact.

Dragon Slayer: +jebstuart: "The fossil record confirms fully the stratigraphic sequence."
That's nothing more than a description, Stuart! What you need to do as an evolutionist is to lay out the exact mechanistic PROCESSES RESPONSIBLE for the sequence to appear as any toad can describe.
But you can't do it, yet you "claim" to have a theory!?!??!!?? I remain uber skeptical of your "theory," Stuart.

Gary Bell: Giggler's using "the second law of thermodynamics", "why are there still monkeys", "science is a religion", "there's no evidence for macroevolution" and "evolution is just a 'theory'!"  But she isn't a YEC lol, next she'll be denying that she isn't even a woman.
#incredible  #implausible  #improbable

jebstuart: Old Lady Giggles - "For anyone foolish enough to assert that DNA and protein enzymes are “natural,” ... LOL. Classic.

Stupid Durr: The bloody curdling banshee hatchery. They hatch egg's of evil inside their humiliated degraded bullie's. Bullies that might just as easily take their frustration out on a shooting killing spree our perhaps on the nerdiest low class nobody child. The ugly bloody curdling shrieking banshee are quit aware of the evil egg of social cancer hatching. It is what sadistically gets them off.

Gary Bell: Haha, well done Giggler you took my advice to step up the name calling of scientists from "liars for Darwin", "semi-intelligent fools" and "frickin' idiots". Calling scientists "toads" is a huge step forwards for Christianity, try adding some adjectives e.g. scientists are warty toads or perhaps scientists are smelly toads, see how you go.

Stupid Durr: "Recall how yesterday, no one paid slightest attention, when I took the trouble to explain how science differs fundamentally from Christian apologetics in testing hypotheses against evidence vs fitting cherry-picked observations to predetermined beliefs, and how the latter approach involves ignoring mountains of evidence that is incompatible with whatever creationist tale is being promoted blah blah fuck'n blah blah?"___Arrogant butt hole talking to himself

Stupid Durr: Yes currently the lofty Satanic, arrogant shit head flushing machine, is experiencing technical difficulties, behind the scenes. Yes how forcefully lofty shit head, might they get, before it all becomes absurdly comedy of errors pointless?

Gary Bell: Giggler: "Scientists won't allow bible literalists to post our nonphysical and nonmaterial explanations - a priori!
What nonphysical and nonmaterial explanations are making you so upset child, post them here?
Giggler: "I don't have any, not one!"
Then how about you shut the fuck up then and stop bawling over nothing!

Press CTRL+D to add the page to the bookmarks.
Нажмите CTRL+D, чтобы добавить страницу в закладки.

Your name:

Your comment:

Video on this topic

Bill Nye on Creationism

Bill Nye on Creationism

Bill Nye: The Earth is Really, Really Not 6,000 Years Old

Bill Nye:  The Earth is Really, Really Not 6,000 Years Old

Bill Nye (The Science Guy) comments on a previous Big Think video in which he denounces the teaching of creationism to America's students. Bill Nye is the ...

RESPONSE: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

RESPONSE: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

This is a Response to: Creation is the fundamental idea in nearly all religions. According to Dr. Tim Jennings, ...

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - The Short Version

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - The Short Version

The full debate between science educator Bill Nye and the President of the Creation Museum Ken Ham runs nearly 3 hours. If you're just looking for the ...

Dr. Jeff Zweerink responds: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Dr. Jeff Zweerink responds: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Dr. Jeff Zweerink responds to: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children video. For more, visit

Bill Nye Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Bill Nye  Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Bill Nye: Creationism is Bad for Us

Bill Nye: Creationism is Bad for Us

Last year, Bill Nye debated Ken Ham, founder of the Creationist Museum in Kentucky, about creationism as a viable model of origins. With his new book, ...

Responding to Bill Nye's Video "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children”

Responding to Bill Nye's Video "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children”

Bill Nye attempts to capture your children's minds for evolution. His video “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children” has revealed his strong evolutionary bias ...

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. According to Bill Nye, aka "the science guy," if grownups want to "deny evolution and live ...