-41 votes

Are You Anti-Science?

Are you a Creationist? Do you want your kids to grow up with Creationist beliefs?

Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" lays it on the line for parents.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not ALL science is

created equal. To worship science as a religion is setting oneself up for manipulation just as religions have been infiltrated so has science. IMO

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

That comment makes no sense.

That comment makes no sense.

Science is a process. If a theory can be proven or disproven, then the base of knowledge is increased, and new theories (which are also subject to testing) may be formulated.

Science is not a religion any more than a mathematical formula is a religion.

evolution (the whole from goo

evolution (the whole from goo to you idea)is religion same as creation. get over yourselves

Who posts this fraud?

This guys is anti-freedom, anti Ron Paul, and is a joke to humanity. Why would anyone post and enemy of Ron Paul on this site?

Since when did advocating

Since when did advocating science and knowledge started being considered as anti-freedom?

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

All those who are anti Ron Paul are anti-freedom.

He hates science and knowledge, he only promotes the establishment's status-quo.

Yes, I admit that I am . . .

skeptical of science. I was raised by a scientist. I cut my teeth on empiricism, and at the end of his long life my father began to realize how much hocus-pocus had been shoved off onto 'the world' by scientists and even some of his colleagues.

The fact is that science suffers from much of the same thing that religion suffers from--

There are religions that are applied truthfully and religions that are not. There are people who are religious who are good, and people who are religious who are bad.

Religious teachings can be skewed and warped and twisted into every kind of evil--

Same with science. There is pure science, and when it isn't poked and shoved and pushed and twisted by politics and business, truth can be found.

But most scientists are swayed in one or another to 'produce' whatever is wanted by those who pay them.

It is sad.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


Good, short, funny clip. Not for everybody here, mind you.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

That's awesome.

Especially the song re-write at the end. Thnx for that.




What bloody medical cure has medical science come out with in the last 40 years? These people are overrated imo.

The only thing of technical significance is probably online porn :/


Antibiotics to fight off 99%

Antibiotics to fight off 99% of bacterial infections
Human Growth hormones to fight off human growth deficiency
Skin grafts and transplants for burn victims
Vaccines to eliminate diseases such as polio, rabies, tetanus
Organ transplants for people with liver/kidney/heart etc failure
Bone marrow transplants for cancer patients
LASIK to restore vision to people
Reconstructive surgeries for bone, skin and muscle damage from sports, military, work, natural disasters and auto injuries and accidents

Human life expectancy has nearly doubles in the last 100 years, all thanks to scientific advances in all fields.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison


antibiotics to create super germs
human growth hormones didn't work with a close relative
Conventional medicine is GOOD with trauma, so #3 is valid
Side effects of vaccines: autism
Do you know how many people shortly after receiving transplants?
There are better treatments for most cancers
People I know who have had LASIK find that it doesn't last; it has to be done, again; many just go back to glasses--
Yes, medicine is good with trauma

Human life expectancy may have doubled, but the cost? Many people live very artificial and low quality lives as a result; how many people do you know who are crippled, unable to function at any kind of normal level, because they have been patched up and pieced together over and over again. I know several who would rather have died in the accident than have lived in agony for decades.

Sometimes it works, but it doesn't work enough of the time or well enough to be praised as highly as *you* are praising it.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Supergerms is simply a term

Supergerms is simply a term for bacteria that is immune to current medicine, this means that medicine will need to research new ways to counter them, and it is, biomimicry on the nanotechnology level to fight bacteria is a pretty amazing thing, still in its infancy but very promising.

Your comment on HGHs makes no sense.

There are many potential causes of autism, the exact causation is still undergoing research. Though there have been claims for some correlation, it does not explain how 99% of the time they are completely safe and cause no negative effects.

Do you know how many people shortly after receiving transplants?

Please take the time to proof read what you write.

There are many ways to combat different types of cancer, unfortunately, chemo is the most universal one even with its side effects, the good news is nano-technology is advancing to the point where it soon will be able to provide much more efficient cancer treatments.

You seem to think that it is medicines fault that the body starts failing after a while ever since our life expectancy doubled, by all means you are welcome to end your life after the age of 35 if you would rather avoid those "inconveniences" of old age all together.

And it might not work perfectly all the time, but with every day, treatments are getting better, cures are being discovered and peoples lifes are being improved as a result.

Its not perfect, but then again, only religion claims to be.

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

you place your faith in science--

I place my faith in God.

HGHs have not been researched enough to show that they are safe.

And, you are correct, I left out the word "die"--in the sentence you quoted.

A close family member of mine died shortly after a very expensive, long-awaited transplant.

You keep your faith in science/medicine; I'll keep my faith in God.

We'll have to agree to disagree. If/when medicine/science really messes up *your* life in a big way, maybe you'll understand. That happened to someone I love--

and I no longer trust science/medicine.

One thing I know is that insurance (and the high cost of cutting edge medical practice) has made it practically impossible for most people to afford the latest technical advances in medicine.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Like I said no cures

Life expectancy has increased mainly due to the invention of the washing machine, indoor plumbing, and refridgeration imo.

Btw, more people die in Florida of Rx drugs than illegal ones.

p.s. those vaccines were about 40 years ago.


You make no sense, many of

You make no sense, many of the problems that medical science fixes are curable only after they occur. For example, lets take the case of liver failure, causes of which range from Hepetitis, drug overdose, alcoholism and poisoning. There is no way to predict that you will experience one of those causes and will suffer from liver failure, but medical science allows us to repair a once fatal condition by way of a liver transplant and give back someone their life when they would have otherwise been sentenced to certain death.

Imagine all the blood vessels, nerve connections and everything else that must be taken into account and completed perfectly in order for both donor and donee to survive, and yet these operations are becoming so sophisticated that complications are becoming rarer and rarer.

I dont understand how you can say that the washing machine extended life expectancy, its a luxury many of us enjoy, but thats about it.

Sanitation and refrigeration were important advances, everybody agrees there.

Recent vaccine example (1996): Hepatitis A, without which children are susceptible to infection which can lead to fatal liver faliure.

Btw, more people die in Florida of Rx drugs than illegal ones.

More people die from auto accidents, does that mean we should abolish all cars?

"Lighthouses are more useful than churches."- Ben Franklin
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."- James Madison

My God is Crom

"Queen of the Black Coast" (1934) - novelette; Weird Tales 23 5, May 1934

He shrugged his shoulders. "I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."


"[The] chief [of the gods of Cimmeria] is Crom. He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?"

ok arnold.....

ok arnold.....

I'm anti-

fake "establishment "science", those soft speaking smirking "scientist" idiots on TV that unctuously and smugly "explain" how the most startling "coincidences" in creation occurred by "accident". AS IF they KNOW anything.

Where Have All The Inventors Gone?

I simply can't avoid this thread any longer because I want to tell you a story which might shockingly insinuate the lack of intelligence of the OP and those who think similarly. A gentleman (Italian, IIRC) has recently invented a new concept for an antenna which violates some preconceived and longstanding notions about radio frequency grounds. This inventor apparently exhaustively measured all the currents involved and ultimately concluded some established tenets were wrong. He constructed working models which verified his observations. Now, he has published and patented portions of his design. Someone interested in his design brought his design and concepts before a forum consisting largely of amateur radio enthusiasts. The majority of them figuratively attempted to dismiss the inventor's design and smear his name based on their "education". These particular enthusiasts used computer simulations by NEC to "prove" the design wouldn't work although the inventor had built a functioning prototype PROVING otherwise. In other words, these indoctrinated "hams" insisted the NEC modeling couldn't be wrong because of their brainwashing in school ("thank" the socialist Dewey). Science by definition is limited in its capacity to reveal knowledge. Science can reveal only what manifests to humanity's sensory system. As this example shows, even what manifests is largely based on prior ASSUMPTIONS as to its correctness which in ALL cases should be ROUTINELY critiqued before proceeding to more general conclusions. The "hams" were biased based on their conditioning and absolutely represent a system of public indoctrination falsely known as education in the USA. The inventor represents a system of real education where ASSUMPTIONS, even entrenched ones, are routinely critiqued in an endless cycle. Critiquing one's biases is both healthy and necessary before one can truly be educated. Were the "hams" embarrassed? Personally, I don't think so as they became extremely hostile and IRRATIONAL in their responses. In my view, the Italian inventor flatly embarrassed the Americans with both tact and genuine education. Most of us in the USA today don't realize our massive conditioning as we have no peers who are truly educated to break our stupor. My dad always remarked that most people were "educated" beyond their intelligence. Dewey and his cronies have largely succeeded. Where have all the inventors in the USA gone? Our country used to be FILLED with them from sea to shining sea.

SteveMT's picture

They are in Galt's Gulch is my hope.

Central dogmas are nearly impossible to overcome, like the theories concerning the Big Bang and evolution. Anyone who supports evidence to the contrary is destroyed.


To your question, where have all the inventors gone?, I have no statistics to offer, and I have not made a study of the question. I do, however, have some observations. For what it's worth:

1. I observe that the Expertise Bias is alive and well in America. Many are conditioned to leave invention to the "experts" and simply never entertain the idea that they themselves might get involved in the game. Somewhere in their schooling, they have lost the will for curiosity and the drive of imagination.

2. Patents are too expensive. I've filed two provisional patent applications, and they don't count for anything until you're ready to spend from $5K to $25K to get them converted to non-provisional status. For example, I have an invention right now that would revolutionize Internet discussion, making it considerably more efficient and useful, but I can't afford to get it patented---and much less to take it to market.

3. The value of a patent is only as high as one's ability to defend that patent in court. Just because you have the patent, it doesn't mean you have a war chest set aside to sue infringers. Nobody looks out for the little guy; you have to pay to play. So the whole system favors those with the most money.

4. The expense of taking a new product to market is ridiculous. If one wants to market alongside the big boys, chances are that he's going to have to bring in a financial partner who will demand a majority share in his company. And the same may be true simply for securing a patent. Having lost control of his invention/company, he may have little interest in inventing again.

5. "Sweat Equity"--the value infused into an invention by the countless hours of labor the inventor pours into it--has practically no value in the eyes of the sharkish venture capital community. They don't deem your idea to have value until it is backed with the cash necessary to get it to market. Thus, their cash (in their minds) brings the primary value to the invention and you and your invention become the minor partners immediately.

6. Protectionist laws and regulations limit the inventor's ability to work around the patent system and the venture capital model. For example, you can't just put up a web page asking for people to invest and offering something in return. Instead, you have to have a formal prospectus in compliance with the Securities Act of 1933, and you may only deal with investors who qualify as such in the eyes of the law. All this red tape serves to the advantage of the big boys who can afford it and it tends to discourage the little guy.

So just as you have noted John Dewey's triumph in the de-education of America, similar triumphs are inherent in the protectionist regulations involving inventions. The goal of institutional education in America (such as devised by Dewey et al) was simply to make a massive worker/consumer class out of the citizens. We were to learn how to work in their factories, and then to go shopping to purchase the products we make for them. Besides that, we are taught to entertain ourselves to the point of utter distraction from doing anything important, and we were taught that when we vote for one of the two approved candidates put forth for our approval, we have done a thing so spectacular as to defy explanation.

As the inventor of the Rule of Law Restoration, I can tell you that the public tends not to be impressed with inventions that solve problems about which they themselves complain! And as an inventor of certain improvements in the autobody repair industry, I can tell you that there is a strong bias against anything new, no matter how promising, effective, and profitable it may be. As a Bible investigator who researches Bible difficulties and common misunderstandings about the Bible, I can tell you that most Bible fans don't care about understanding the particulars of the very book they laud as the greatest ever written. And as the author of Character Not Included, I can tell you that few Americans are interested in any analysis or solution that requires them to read more than a single page in order to grasp it.

America is tired, lazy, disorganized, and distracted. And for the most part, so are her inventions of late. We don't even seem to care that our computers generally work so poorly and require so much maintenance and frustrating troubleshooting. Most of us just live with the inconvenience as if there simply were not a better way. We do not aspire to be better people ourselves, and we have no goals for the aspirations of the society in which we live---except, of course, to "exercise our right to vote", proudly putting into power a guy we hated last year, but whom we now deem to be a veritable saint compared to the guy the other party is running.

This is our dull society. And it remains dull mostly for our unwillingness to make it better. And we could most certainly make it considerably better if we were willing. But alas, that would require effort and thinking and trial and error and risk and invention and perhaps even some money. America the Great is apparently no contender in the face of such daunting obstacles as self correction presents. So we continue in our error. And those who care enough to devise solutions---they are the misfits. We are taught rather, that it is acceptable to complain, but not to attempt to fix anything.

Our very culture, therefore, is anathema to the spirit of invention.

Paradigm assumptions

Are the oft-missed factor.

Most of your points are anecdotally correct but only in the paradigm of days gone by. With a few changes (that are coming now), many of them are relegated to insignificance or simply become moot.

For example, you base a lot on the assumption that the bankers (and all related creatures) have some higher ground and can tell inventors what to do. That's basically true for the past and today, but not for the future. What changes in your synopsis under the following paradigm shifts:

Crowd funding overtakes angel/shark investors;
Money becomes so abundant that social materialism takes a nose dive;
Online services supplant patent authority;
The cloud recognizes its power over its enemies (government, market, money, borders, propaganda...);
Business models reorganize around small & local with only growth as THE MARKET needs;
Merit replaces greed (survivability) as the driving force behind the spread of global solutions;
Profit motive is replaced by peer standing;
Creativity returns to being a self satisfying hobby;

Currently we say, "necessity is the mother of invention" but due to marketing, we live it the reverse way. What we should be saying and living is "creativity is the new mother of invention due to the elimination of necessity".

Popular apathy is the obvious result of sane people fighting a constantly losing battle. TPTB know that people won't keep fighting until they find a way that begins producing results. This is how they control us. With some of the new methods we have to ensure our efforts produce results (case: the recent referendums that passed), it is rational to think the people will grow their enthusiasm. Slow process? Sure, but it will and is happening.

The 'inventions of America' are not tired, lazy or otherwise misdirected. They fall into two categories that gives off this impression. The first is the 'fluff' inventions (my term) that don't change the game but allow people to trade simple convenience (my definition being not really necessary) for inventor wealth. I place energy developments, financial shenanigans, government bait and swithes, and many other things in this category.

The second category inventions fall into is virtually invisible to the general public. Sure some university research project gets attention and then fights the investor/IP game which keeps it off the market for years before a loophole renders the business model dead, but for the most part, these inventions reside elsewhere in society. These inventors do not go public. They don't advertise. They don't hunt investors or apply for grants. They know the societal worth of their ideas is a complete game changer and as such, it will be taken from them, controlled, manipulated and turned into yet another tool for the monopolization of the mass wealth and income. This leads them to stay quiet until they can start their business in a sustainable way.

By sustainable, they mean they have to build all of the tools, parts, design, planning and funding themselves. This is similar to the family and friends funding method with a few outsiders who can help in-kind. Once they 'get going', they generally stay small enough to stay under the radar and build enough of a nest egg for things like patents and automation. For them, these are the needed budget items because since they're not 'fluff' ideas, growth will occur without the game of push marketing.

Is this happening now? Absolutely. We see it all the time. Look at the 3D printer market. They were selling hundreds before they made big news. Same goes for the hobbyist processor/controller market. Still not mainstream public, they are building an entire computing infrastructure to replace nearly all of our non-desktop/laptop intelligence devices. Thousands of other examples abound.

Point is in all this, that people will not fight the same battle once they learn it's futile. That would be (the definition of) crazy. Instead, they are taking some time to restructure the world from the bottom up, based on the new 'barn raising' techniques the internet offers. When they get enough roads built, look out because it will then take weeks to go from idea to debt-free funded, fully crowd-co-developed and sustainable local-based sales. That's the point where those other paradigm shifts I listed above will take place.


I appreciate this response and I'm quite sure other readers do as well. Thanks!

Bill Nye is a Coward

In addition to not being a scientist (his degree is in engineering), Bill Nye is a coward. Answers in Genesis has challenged him to debate Dr. Georgia Purdom. Dr. Purdom IS a scientist with a PhD in molecular genetics, and Bill Nye the coward guy won't debate a girl.

If you want to see how absurd Nye's position is, read this article and watch the youtube videos there:


The article also links to another article that is definitely worth reading:


Lastly, the title of this thread is lame. Christians are not anti-science. In an online discussion many years ago on this same subject, a friend of mine was asked by an antagonist,

"So why were we given a mind and an intellect?"

My friend replied,

""That we might use them to the glory of God" is my general answer. To engage in believing scientific enterprises wherein the scientist starts with His word as the lamp unto his or her investigating feet, is one specific way to go about that. What great liberty God has given us to fulfill the grand purpose for our existence!

"Start with the Bible and have powerful light from on high to do science. Start with the idea that the Bible is for "spiritual stuff only", that proud science need not even "inquire of the LORD", and one is already in the darkness..."

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Mr. Spock, "Both" sides in this debate....

...tend to fall victim to attribute substitution quite often. (Read about attribute substitution here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution). All humans tend to be cognitive misers, thinking deeply only when they think they must. Both evolutionists and creationists tend to do this, as their writings often exhibit.

In my critique of this Bill Nye piece, I use fact, logic, and sourcing to expose the flaws in Nye's argument. Meanwhile, in my considerable experience in discussing such things with creationists, I find that very few of them could pass the same tests.

Here's my article on Nye. http://www.jackpelham.com/2012/09/02/bill-nye-the-science-gu...

As to your specific point:

Lastly, the title of this thread is lame. Christians are not anti-science.

I do not have any statistical data, but I'd be quite surprised if a valid survey did not serve to identify an anti-science bias among a great many believers. I witness a general attitude amongst many Christians by which they take any challenge to fact as an insult to their FAITH. They will fall victim to attribute substitution, and write off the challenge as to fact as if it were instead a direct attack from Satan, aimed at "shipwrecking their faith". This is hardly the evidentiary view that supposedly underlies all of science. Rather, just like so many of the scientists whom they criticize, this "Christian" behavior is more in keeping with a cult of predetermined conclusions.

Edited to add: Meanwhile, some scientists see this bad behavior and scoff at it, rightly identifying the irrationality of it. Yet they do the very same things themselves, repeating as hearsay the orthodox scientific theories they were taught without EVER doing their own research into the matter. Thus do many on "both" sides tend to look down on each other for the same behavior they dismiss in themselves as justifiable.

Now, back to the Christians: end of edit

Interestingly, after decades of defending the "water canopy" notion, some Christians are beginning to admit some of its problems. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/09/25/feedback...) Even so, however, they don't seem to make a proper analysis of just what a huge monkey wrench it throws into their model that they have no idea how to explain what they read in their own texts. edited to add:They have no idea how to explain a MAJOR component of the cosmology as they interpret the Bible to present it, yet they are not troubled in the least by their prevailing presumption that they have more or less got the rest of the puzzle right. They cannot even explain the FIRST chapter of the Bible consistently by use of the same hermeneutic principles---and very, very few of them are even trying.

I don't mean to be suggesting that there is no plausible interpretation that would yield a truly functional model---and I have been working on this project myself for some time, as my limited schedule permits. But I am completely convinced that MOST people in this debate, regardless of which "side" they are on, are not only wrong, but are quite unlikely ever to correct themselves. This is because of their "my side" bias---a bias that a great many people cannot even identify in themselves for lack of sufficient practice in self awareness and for a lack of sufficient use of the reflective mind. Further, while some are ignorant of the fundamentals of logic, MOST know logic, but suffer from ignorance to the fact that it is better to test ALL of one's positions by logic, rather than to leave some of them to subjectivism.


Ecclesiastes 8 16 When I

Ecclesiastes 8
16 When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth:

17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

Ecclesiastes 12
12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

Science is valuable

but science is not God. Science is the process we use to understand God's creation, and manipulate or operate it to use it better, for our benefit.