-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.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Every comment here supports one of two options, is there a

Third option of how life originated? The discussion supports either a creator as intelligent designer, or random chance evolution from a ancient pond. Here we are in a galaxy so vast its beyond human comprehension, in a universe of billions of galaxies and possibly amid billions of universes. My feeling is life travels through out the universe, takes root where ever the conditions are right, then adapts to its environment. The universe maybe teeming with such life. To have the arrogance of thinking there is no intelligence behind the design or that all can be explained by an ancient religion are both unprovable and frankly hard to believe. IMHO. http://www.panspermia.org/


Really? That only pushes it back. It still doesn't answer the question of where life came from in the first place.

That may be true, however, it pushes it way, way back

Considering the vastness of the universe and the possibilities of commets carrying life spores, it seems more logical a theory than if life just sprung up here on earth in a tidal basen. The fact remaines all theories can't be proven as of yet, so an open mind and scientific theories should remain theories until they can be proven.

On one day, not so long ago

a small group of people, 'invented' the concept of using electronic signals to simulate the transfer of numbers between devices, to simulate the addition and subtraction of those numbers, the storage of them and the testing of whether they were equal or not.

These are extremely simple and insignificant little concepts. Yet you put them together in myriad ways by chance or by design and you can end up with today's (and tomorrow's) computer infrastructure, including apps, internet, collaboration, education, archive, robotics, automation, intelligent systems, knowledge networks and so many more it's hard to recite.

This example has two very specific factors that affected the odds of this happening and the time it took. First, it relied on things that don't replicate or mutate in the natural world, so it relied on outside intelligence that trends toward upgrading, rather than simple duplication. Second, since it was intervened upon by external intelligence and direction, the entire evolution of the computer industry occurred in a few decades.

If no external intelligence was at play, it would take an extremely long time for the first step to occur by chance but each successive step would take exponentially less time. Since the natural laws show each step is possible, even if we allow that some have yet to be proven, there is a strong correlation between the time it took to morph the beginnings of a lifeless planet into the civilized world we have today.

Why is this not used as evidence supporting the long and winding road?

Nye makes irrational arguments.

This piece was a real disappointment coming from someone supposed to be a "scientist". I posted an article on this piece a couple of months ago, detailing the fallacies Nye commits. http://www.jackpelham.com/2012/09/02/bill-nye-the-science-gu...

It is possible to live a full

It is possible to live a full life, be kind to one's neighbors and eventually die in peace never having a single days thought dedicated to the big questions raised by religion or science, however, not a single day can pass when one has not interacted or experienced at some level the effects of "applied sciences" and "formal science". If one thinks, makes decisions or interacts with the physical world, they are unavoidable.

Velveeta, please help me...

...understand your point here. It seems obvious enough, yet I don't see how the point I'm reading applies particularly to my comment.


"Science" from the Latin

"scientia" meaning knowledge.

The fear of YHUH is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov 1:7

Woe unto you, lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge: you entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in you hindered. Luke 11:52

Bill Nye is laughed at by Private Sector scientists

He's a clown, a showhorse, a dysfunctional fool.

Yeah, Im being nice. Is the OP a self appointed gate keeper of Science? In other words, a democrat?


Why must it be an absolute

Why must it be an absolute belief in God or an absolute belief in science? I'm humble enough as a human to realize I don't know everything. In my humble opinion, science is the answer to how instead of why. There's enough room for both of these beliefs to coexist in the same discussion. In my opinion, an absolutist on either side of the spectrum is not practicing enough humility.

It reminds me of many discussions on this board about how you have to be absolutely against Rand Paul, Jack Hunter, or absolutely with 9/11 theories and various speakers for the liberty movement.

It seems silly to me to shut out anyone with an opinion before you listen to it first. Differences and discussion are what make me a better person every day. If more humility and listening were part of everyday discussion the liberty movement and the human condition would greatly benefit.

GoodSamaritan's picture

I don't see the divide that way

In my view, it's simply a matter of identifying and rejecting junk science. Honest scientific inquiry and discovery are not at odds with the Bible.

I once studied to be a Paleontologist, convinced that the general theory of evolution was the best explanation for the diversity we see around us. Thankfully, I followed a different career path after being shown a better theory with more satisfactory explanations and predictions offered by scientists who hold to Special Creation.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

What did you find in your

What did you find in your studies to be a paleontologist that caused you to think that its junk and the earth is only 6,000 years old?

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

GoodSamaritan's picture

I appreciate your questions and rebuttals

That was about 40 years and an awful lot of books and articles ago. It's difficult to remember precisely what drove me to reject evolutionary interpretations but I remember a good deal of study at that time regarding possible effects of a worldwide deluge (the Flood / Noah's Flood). My considerations were focused on such topics as sedimentation, hydraulic sorting, fossilization, geologic formations, and so forth. I'm sure I studied everything else of pertinence but those come to mind as part of my earliest inquiries into Special Creation.

I believe that God created the universe around 6-10,000 years ago. There are several cosmologies that allow for such a short time. For your own research: C-decay, White-Hole Cosmology, Cosmic Center Model, and Cosmological relativity.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I agree...

...but the point about lack of humility is valid. Arrogance abounds in these types of discussions. Even when it comes to one Christian discussing theology with another Christian, this arrogance and knee-jerk labeling of the other as the heretic is so frequently the case. Instead of 'speaking the truth in love', I hear things like 'you're evil and apostate', etc.

Cyril's picture

Why must it be an absolute belief in God or in science ?

"Why must it be an absolute belief in God or an absolute belief in science ?"

Answer is easy :

it's just UNNECESSARY, because an UNTRUE "OPPOSITION".

I'm always first amused, and then, ANNOYED, by those who try hard to use science, for instance, to show the faithful and/or religious ones that their beliefs can't be backed up by any scientific evidence.


Don't they know that even their (ours) "hard sciences" such as Maths (or, up to some extent Physics, etc) don't have any "truth" of themselves, complete and consistent at any single point in time ?

1 + 1 = 2 ... and yet... Math themselves CANNOT even prove WHY AND HOW, ***COMPLETELY***.


I'd recommend those people should learn more about Godel's and Turing's last century's discoveries, and then to think AGAIN before coming to argue, "from a scientific standpoint", with people concerned with faith, disregarding the orthogonality/complementary of science and faith.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

What the heck are you talking

What the heck are you talking about?

FOOLS. Don't they know that even "hard sciences" such as Maths (or Physics, etc) don't have any "truth" of themselves, complete and consistent at any single point in time ?

You religious folks keep using this "truth" word, I dont think it means what you think it means, maybe you can explain what is so untrue about math?

1 + 1 = 2 ... and yet... Math themselves CANNOT even prove WHY AND HOW, ***COMPLETELY***.

WTF is that suppose to mean?

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

Cyril's picture

Oh, and :

Oh, and :

"You religious folks keep using this "truth" word, I dont think it means what you think it means, maybe you can explain what is so untrue about math ?"

Well, good point. Okay, let's forget religion.

But if we're talking about truth or falsehood in science, we ought to know what we're talking about. Shall we ?

So, what is true, and what is false, scientifically, and WHERE, BTW ?

Here :


Or there :



In other words : WHERE, IN WHICH assumption, Open or Closed, do you place yourself ?

THAT is scientifically relevant, to start with.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

1 + 1 = 2. Think it is easy to prove ?

1 + 1 = 2

Think it is easy to prove ?

Learn more about Godel's incompleteness theorems and the Halting problem for Turing machines. Check out also "P vs. NP". All these with good introductory materials on Wikipedia.

Then, we can rediscuss the amount of trust one can put in formal systems, including logics (classical, intuitionistic, modal, etc) and axiomatics (with or without AC, the axiom of choice, or the law of excluded middle, etc).

"The village's barber (a man) shaves all the men of the village who don't shave themselves. Who shaves the barber ?"

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The barber doesn't shave

In the strictest sense, that's the only solution. In the casual context of normal conversation, he's automatically assumed to be in both groups.

These are examples of logical fallacies used to show how language is incomplete in its translation between casual conversation and problem specification. They are not the norm for all science but more a illusionist side show for entertainment purposes. (unless a specification of some process or theory was imperfect)

Context is the factor that scientists strive to include in their descriptions but critics give them no leeway when it is incomplete.

The irony is that most lay people also shy away from science because of this very context since it makes an otherwise simple statement verbose and hard to read.

Cyril's picture

Yes and no. Time for the "solution".

Yes and no.

Time for the "solution". Or rather, recall the reason for the absence of any, thereof : in fact, it makes no sense to even try solve this paradox, that is, to answer the question.

I obviously didn't invent anything as it's well documented :


This barber paradox is just a version of Russell's paradox expressed in natural language; Russell's, formally, is stated in "Naive Set Theory" (NST) :


which has since been proven to be inconsistent.

Another way to put the barber paradox, half formally / half in natural language, is to talk about :

"the set of elements which are (1) themselves sets, and (2) which don't contain themselves" (as in "the barber who shaves men who don't shave themselves, yet is one of them")

The inconsistency of NST implies that such a set cannot "exist" ... without leading immediately to further contradictions for anything constructed / derived from it.

This has been fixed with ZF(C) (Zermelo Fraenkel set theory, with or without AC - the axiom of choice - and which is ***believed*** to be consistent, since no one has derived a contradiction from it ... YET)


Again, my point was only to recall that in science, even of the "hardest" kinds -read: the most formally defined- such as Math, Godel's incompleteness theorems have shown that you cannot have both consistency and completeness.

Science can only progress but by hop by hop, speculations, modeling, verifications, refinements, without ever claiming any "completeness" at any given single point in time.

Hence the dishonest fallacy to even claim one can prove or disprove God's "existence" from a scientific point of view.

Faith is all about A TRUST, out of free will, in a design greater than man's mind capability. One can call it a bet or wager, too.

Whether we choose TO TRUST, have faith, or not, in our creator, is completely orthogonal, complementary, to the scientific approach.

Neither excludes the other. Neither requires the other.

Peace... and God Bless :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You really must read up on context

Every statement you've made here, as well as the paradoxes listed, fail when compared to the scientific discoveries included with their full context. That's the piece that's missing.

Without explicit, implied and agreed upon or requested context, no statement ever made can be verified. Unfortunately, social convention everywhere has one of those three covered.

"How many marbles are in the box" is a simplistic question that a 4 year old could answer but your paradox and inconsistency theories cannot. The difference is context. The child uses the implied time frame of "now" where the latter can only prove it to be an impossible question.

How is this scientific at all? Just because you 'can' provide a proof that something is contradictory, doesn't mean that it is complete when considered in various other contexts. For example, even if we agreed that the marble question was referring to 'now', you could still nitpick on what we meant by "marble" and if both qualified and if I meant this box or that one, and if the box is even a box, and if the schroedinger's cat games apply after the lid was closed. It's an endless set of paths to go down but with context, which is actually a social thing in the end, there definitely can be proof.

So, in a reasonably applicable and pre-agreed-upon context:
1+1 definitely always equals 2;
the steps required for evolution are possible and likely;
many steps have been verified;
the Earth is around 14 billion years old;
life has existed at least 4 billion years on this planet;
miracles can be interpreted from illusions, hallucinations, dreams and mental actions alone;
omnipotence would require infinity^2 memory and computational power (to cover all things and all times);
omnipotence would also have to know and remember everything in that infinite memory and computational power;
that some intelligence external to our own is controlling us even though said externalty allows free-will is unnecessary knowledge;
that people with power often use it to control others;
that it is possible and sensible that religious books were written for this reason;
that the power attained by these practices is being used in some level of cooperation with an effort to wield control over the masses;
that Occam's Razor holds valid for this argument.

Cyril's picture

I hear you.

I hear you.

You seem to have a significant epistemological or at least scientific background to make the valid points you made.

You "blamed" (in the counter argumentation sense) my not providing a full scientific context for the statements I made which doesn't help in making them convincing or even relevant to some people.

Of course none of those were mine, and it isn't exactly practical to use a post and comment thread such as this one to provide a full or fair enough state-of-knowledge context.

Also, the main point I was trying to make really has also been recalled by another commenter on this thread re: the etymology of "science".

We know for a long time and Charles Sanders Peirce proposed a model of the self referential property of man's natural language, in signs "trilogy" of symbols, indices, and icons.

I mostly played the devil's advocate and then prosecutor when I pointed out that knowledge, even when crudely formalized, is overwhelmed by that self referentiality.

I learned about Math for the engineer, and even physics. I could read and understand to some extent Luminet's book on black holes, etc.

And of course, like anyone usually does, I ended up specializing myself in a domain. Since you seem to know about that one too, my point was also to attract the attention on another analogy one can make:

man is born with senses and realizes soon the limits and essential incompleteness of his knowledge about the universe. Isn't it analogous to a computer's hardware + software with self referential capabilities, running, and yet unable ever to "explain" (e.g., reference in some sense) by itself the nature of its own origin and grand design unless the creator (computer manufacturer, and programmer) has planted in it some means of referencing it as such (i.e., "creation") ? Is it even too far fetched ? Then, why so ?

Or if not, what would be the equivalent constructs for "free will" or, conversely, "futility" or "agnosticism" for computer programs ? Wouldn't that require "consciousness" first ? What would qualify as being the intrinsic limits thereof ? Etc.

Yet again, the halting problem is a really interesting, challenging thing to consider when one decides to either oppose or explain science with faith ... or the other way round.

Just IMO, anyway.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

"The village's barber (a man)

"The village's barber (a man) shaves all the men of the village who don't shave themselves. Who shaves the barber?"

OK, so there are men in the village who don't shave themselves and there are men in the village who shave themselves.

Did you mean to say:

The village male barber shaves every man in the village. So, who shaves the barber?

Himself or one of the villagers who knows how to shave.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Cyril's picture

No. Here's what is meant in this paradox

No. Here's what is meant in this paradox:

The village has grown men (besides women and kids, certainly, but irrelevant otherwise).

The village has exactly one barber, who is one of them men.

And, further, the property (i.e., specification) of interest of that village is its men fall in either of two, and only two groups, exclusive from each other:

Group 1: men who shave themselves

Group 2: men who don't, and for those, the barber has to shave them, and only them (since men who shaves themselves are dealt with in group 1)

Men either can shave themselves or they can't. When they can't, only the single barber is able to shave them. That's why we call him the barber.

Same question:

who shaves the barber ?

Hints :

if the barber doesn't shave himself, he is in group 2, and then he has to shave ... the barber, himself, which puts him in group 1 : it's a contradiction.

if the barber shaves himself, he is in group 1, and then he isn't supposed to shave himself, because of the very definition of his role, for shaving men of group 2 only. Contradiction again.


the barber cannot shave himself and cannot NOT shave himself either; that's the paradox: such a village and barber cannot possibly exist as defined.

The paradox relies on a specification flaw however; can you spot it ?

It's a classic. You can also lookup the liar paradox, and how all that relates to the foundations of modern Set Theory (as opposed to the naive set theory where such paradoxes would surface easily as we just saw)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


...I think what's lacking among many on either side of the theistic-atheistic divide is a sense of humility and open-mindedness. People on both sides are a little too quick to label you a heretic against either their particular theology or their view of science, without calmly discussing it.

Bill is smart...

But the problem as I see it, is that you can't "will" someone to take your stance. There has to be a spark of interest, kind of like with Ron Paul. How many of us would like to shake those Romney supporters and tell them we need to follow the logical principles of the libertarians? Or that the FED is printing too much money? Many many people just don't want to hear it. So religious fanatics are here to stay.

There are also many in science who think there is design in things and they debate the evidence all the time. One of the most active sites is Uncommon Descent. http://www.uncommondescent.com/

GoodSamaritan's picture

Thanks for the link

A slight correction to one of your sentences:

"So religious [and science] fanatics are here to stay."

I looked at the Uncommon Descent site and found an article that provides very powerful arguments for the historicity of Jesus and the accuracy of the Biblical record:


Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

The site is a joke, and so is

The site is a joke, and so is the blog post you refer to; the very first paragraph demonstrates it.

Paul wrote c. 55 AD, to the Corinthians regarding the core facts of the gospel formally handed to him through the official testimony communicated by Peter, James, John and other leading witnesses in Jerusalem, c. 35 - 38 AD.

So this is written 55 years after the events, but wait why did it take him 20 YEARS to write it down? And of course as usual, the story was passed by hearsay.

This proves nothing of the supposed godlyness and miracles that you claim of your god. Secondary sources and decades after the fact does not lead to much historical accuracy. If your god was so great, why didn't they write about him while he was alive and immediatly after his death? What took them so many years?

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

GoodSamaritan's picture

The power of small number math

55 years after the events? Try again.

But you ask a couple of good questions. A big part of the answer is that the Apostles were working every waking moment to spread the Gospel. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and the rest were Apostles to the Jews. Paul's letters (Epistles) were often written as follow-ups to churches he had planted years before.

Frankly, between full-time ministry and frequent hardships it's a miracle :) that any of the New Testament was written as soon as it was.

As for writing about Jesus while He was alive, His followers were only disciples (students) during the last three-years of His life. After His crucifixion, they were cowering in fear of the authorities until Jesus showed Himself to them three days later. It was only after they were convinced of His resurrection, witnessed His ascension, and were empowered by the Holy Spirit that they became bold enough to begin their own ministries in the face of constant persecution.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father