-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.

Trying to grasp evolution

is like watching a movie that begins with an ignorant premise. Just because you watch the movie and maybe even like it, it is still just an unreal fantasy. But some movies you just can't get past the stupidity of the premise and the resulting ignorance requires that you just turn it off.

You evolutionist always try to make the claim that there is evidence of evolution but you never seem to deliver the goods. And when someone does put something out there as proof it always turns out to be speculation instead.

This is the case

for literally every belief. We are free to choose any reality that resonates with us. Do you know of anything that is 100% fully provable? Have you ever truly considered the probability of the things you accept in your belief system? Evolution could be another red pill if you study it with the same sort of diligence often suggested to the non-liberty minded to be used in gaining a comprehension the concepts of liberty.

And that's another thing.

You (in the broad sense), always assume that anyone who doesn't believe in the evolution concept have not studied it. Has it ever occurred to you that some of us who have rejected evolution do so because we have studied it and perhaps your cognitive skills are the ones that are lacking?

No insult intended. But if some "real" evidence were available then it wouldn't be such an impossible sale.


for the discussion. This is polarizing subject matter. I enjoy exercising intense debate, once in a while, especially with such worthy individuals as I find on this site. I'm glad we're all on the same team and I know our beliefs are united on shared principles of freedom. So, I'm quite comfortable embracing and respecting our differences when they come along, as they always will.

Please share with us

where you get your universal information from. Is it possible that children are "brainwashed" to believe in god also? If you were born in the middle east, to Muslim parents, could it be possible that you would be a Muslim?

"I am Troll fighter, number one"



Anything is possible in that regard.

I wasn't born into a religious family. I get my information from life itself and the absolute ignorance of evolution is pretty evident to those who haven't been brainwashed by the anti God crowd. If there was no belief in God then there would be no belief in evolution because the only reason it was ever proposed is because of disbelief in God.

But to the point here, you don't have one shred of evidence that evolution is factual. Zero. Zip. Nada. But despite this truth Velveeta decides to launch a meaningless attack on religion out of the blue and for no other reason than to rile people. That's why I asked why he found it necessary to bring this crap up. And to no response I might add. But I know the reason and it is sad.

I believe in Aliens....

and a conscious force of Creation, imbued with the power to create autonomous consciousness...the only thing that can alter matter. I call that power God...so what does that make me?

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Creative open mind.

Probably agnostic.

No...definitely not agnostic...

as being such would have me believe that a greater force at work is "unkown or unknowable". I "know" this force exists and is at work...even though I don't and can't "know" the full extent of (its/his [?]) mechanisms...nor can I attribute a humanistic identity to such conscious force.

Its evidence, at least to me, is rather apparent...as is the blatant dearth of human history that is hidden from our view yet expertly explained away by the ridiculous postulations of "natural evolution" in its popular and all-encompassing understanding.

Is adaptation a mechanism within this force? Undoubtedly...but with limitation not attributed by currently popular, yet 1830's dependent... "science".

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

You say

"definitely not agnostic" but it seems that you recognize some agnostic qualities in your belief. You accept that you don't have, or perhaps are not even capable of, the full knowledge of what 'it' is, even though you are able to acknowledge a greater force. Therefore, you are open to possibilities and free from the limiting boundary of "knowing" as opposed to atheistic and theistic types that think to "know" entirely. You're beliefs seem close to an agnostic theism, but I'm not sure you go far enough to define what you sense as being a deity or entity. I don't intend to project any definitions onto you, just entertaining the discussion. My own beliefs tend to resonate with yours.

You hit the semantic nail...

...on the head with your differentiation between Deity or Entity. This is something I'd have to throw into the "unknown" bin...or accept personal druthers in defining what's what.

My experience and discernment lead to the belief that there is conscious direction within (or overseeing) the seemingly chaotic flow of life within the universe and that its mechanism is seen in the formulation and expansion of consciousness...that which alters matter out of, or within, energy.

It also appears that consciousness can not be limited to human definition and understanding as we have only a small piece of the puzzle with which to formulate our understandings...to say nothing of the propensity towards laziness and acquiescence to "higher" intellectual powers or "expert" understandings. To me, it appears that consciousness exists outside the boundaries of physicality...and as such, it probably cannot be destroyed in any physical sense...which might mean that we humans are truly are spiritual (ethereal/energy) beings having a temporary experience.

Educated, and/or religious, "understanding" seems to laughingly negate the existence of distinct consciousness in seemingly inanimate things like...I dunno...planets? (which are anything but inanimate) and other lifeforms like say tree's? (to say nothing of any "collective" consciousness formed between them),

In consideration of religion, there is a distinct propensity to place "value" only in that which they say is a conscious life bestowed by their "God" or his son, or cousin...or other such seemed nonsense...and a value only bestowed to dogmatic believers...as all others are damned.

Farther, I am amazed at the cognitive dissonance of popular religious thought and historical postulation within academia when I look at a place like Tiwanaku, Bolivia and the "accepted explanations" of its origin and age. That it was inundated by water...at some point...is hardly a stretch. But religion would supply biblical "facts" which would burn my "lying eyes"...while in the same vein, academia would have me believe abject fallacy as to its origin, age and purpose. I found much more credibility in explanations provided by Brian Scott through his ET experiences in the late 70's as recorded by James Frazier. I befriended Brian in 2003 after finding him living in PA a few years before his death. His story was really fascinating and well documented.

I dunno...science and religion seem to meet often...but always with a rubbery bounce...with both providing inadequate understanding of a highly complex question concerning the origins and purpose of "man".

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

I'm deeply impressed by

the reach of your awareness. I feel like you and I could discuss each of the points you touch on, even further, with a mutual harmony between two unique visions. Somehow, I think we "speak" the same philosophical language and perhaps share similar patterns of organizing the seeming-chaos-of-information. To be honest, I've almost never read another description more similar to my own perceptions, of reality, than what you expressed here.

I would be fascinated to learn about the path you've undertaken and the experiences that have allowed you to come to these realizations. It's intriguing to me because my own path has been rather unconventional, in that, I've rejected learning by the means of others' words, books, and institutions almost entirely, instead finding greater satisfaction in personal analysis of my direct experience of life.

This sort of synchronicity seems to point to implications of a collective consciousness, the mechanics of which remain beyond my grasp.

a Deist.


I don't believe in Aliens

as in the pop culture version, but I do accept that with the vastness of the Universe there must be some form of life out there. Is the pop culture version of Aliens a possibility, I suppose... but I haven't seen one.

Oh I do...

and I'd include that attributed to pop culture just as much as I'd include the "possibilities" of the vast universe.

The pop culture arose from something...and archeology has provided many artifacts and petroglyphs that are quite "pop".

Considering the work of Harvard professor John Edward Mack, and others (and for me, my own personal investigations), of the abduction/visitation phenomenon... I can firmly report that I am inextricably in the "believe" camp.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

What do you think it makes

What do you think it makes you?

You should be skeptical of what is taught in public education

CMI Response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xSi8g2ouCQ

Modern day evolution theory changes all the time, and is based upon many unknowable assumptions.

Very few critics of modern Creation science have actually looked at the arguments they present against evolution and for Creation.

If anyone is interested (even evolutionists who just want to understand where some of us come from), I would recommend you read this book by CMI: http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-505

You can also view a free PDF version on their website: http://creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index

I challenge you to read it with an open mind, and tell me what you think of it.

It's okay to change your beliefs.

You aren't going to go to hell. To recognize the validity of evolution does not in any way equate with having all of the answers, as no one does. Free your mind from the limits of the biblical paradigm. Change is the only constant and our information is rapidly compounding in quantity. Your current belief system prevents you from incorporating new understanding. Maybe time to upgrade?

"Creation Science" is not science

It is parading as science to lull people into being more comfortable with a supposedly "science-based" set of explanations that support their bible-learnin'. It's a fraud.

I'm not looking for an insult

If you are going to ignore the other side of the story and immediately label it off, then why bother responding with a condescending remark like that?

All I asked was that you review some of the material I posted and possibly discuss it. You don't have to do that, but I would be appreciative if you don't respond with an attempt to make me look bad.

I'm truly not hoping to get into an argument with you. I think we can be more respectful than the commentators on Youtube and have a reasonable discussion with one another.

As far as teaching both sides in public schools, that's easy for me. I just have to look at the nonaggression axiom (the role of government all comes down to enforcing this and property rights, and nothing else), and viola: the government shouldn't provide education to anyone. Some schools will teach Creationism, some evolution, and some (hopefully most) will teach both and encourage critical thinking.

Nye is establishment "science".

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Richard Feynman



Of course there are bad scientists ie. for the money and honors ....to answer the question.


LOL! So if you question

LOL! So if you question 'evolution' (whatever that is) then you are anti-science.

The devil is in the details. One detail I'd like to ask Nye about is "What is evolution?" Once the term is defined, it usually isn't long into further discussion before the term begins to shift and grow to mean far more than the simple initial definition.

Further exploration usually reveals that this dispute is based in ones philosophical presuppositions, and not in an unbiased view of the evidence (as if there is any such thing). All the things Nye mentions can be interpreted in numerous ways to fit within various presuppostional worldviews. The inconsistencies Nye is concerned with are the apparent conflicts between another persons metaphysics and how they interpret the evidence as compared to Nye's own particular interpretation of the evidence, which he has 'a prior' filtered through his own metaphysical presuppositions.

Trying to point these things out to someone like Nye can be a real scream. Scientist are generally notoriously bad at philosophy. Just read Dawkins when he gives it a go sometime. It's a real scream.

You believe that a cosmic

You believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

And yet you have a problem with the gaps in evolution?

And you believe that all your

And you believe that all your thoughts are nothing more than a phenomena caused by chemical reactions within that curious vat you are pleased to call a brain. As such, they are ultimately under the control of blind material forces.
Your thoughts are an illusion created by billions of jabbering neurons.
So why should we care about what a mere chemical sack has to say? It's all just smoke down in the hole.

And by the way, I don't believe I said a word about 'gaps in evolution'. But hey, those chemicals in your head always behave this way in similar environments and temperatures. It really can't be helped.

You nailed it.

I'm relieved now having read your comment. You've essentially deciphered, to the core, the very struggle between individuals' belief systems that fill this page.

And if one questions

And if one questions unprovable religion, what then?

Science can and should be questioned. Constantly. The best available theories and models of reality are what science has given us. Religion has given us... well, confusing rules meant to constrain human behavior and unrealistic ideas of the real nature of the universe for so many thousands of years.

And there you have it folks!

And there you have it folks! Once again, a philosophically inept science type!
To even determine if accepted models and theories are best, certain unprovable presuppositions must be adopted. You are as religious as the Pope.

"Religion has given us... well, confusing rules meant to constrain human behavior and unrealistic ideas of the real nature of the universe for so many thousands of years."

Let's have some fun. Let's assume your statement to be 100% true about all religion at all times. Now here are the questions, Mr. Scientist... Is there some overarching obligation floating out in space somewhere? Are there certain immaterial realities that constrain us to not behave this way? What's wrong with constraining human behavior? Is there some real right or wrong in your godless model that forbids us from believing in unrealistic things? If there is, where did these rules come from? If not, then what are bellyaching about?