-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.


Obviously I can't speak for the poster, but I wasn't getting that 'vibe' at all. Point is that we're not as different from other animals as we sometimes like to believe we are.

Not for nothing, but one line retorts along the lines of the jab about Marx and "God has his reasons. Study Genesis. there you will find the answer." are exactly the things encourage people to bring out the 'anti-science' label in the first place.

Yeah, some 'science' is politicized to the point of being garbage on all sides, but I have to shake my head in disappointment when I see people cling to the same mentality that ushered in the dark ages.

A signature used to be here!

Humans can control you through your emotions.

And we can put personalities in a box.

Human beings are more than animals. A human being will know how an animal is going to feel dependent upon that animals personality. We can see animals for what they are and pre-recognize how they'll respond emotionally.

We're MORE than animals because we can raise ourselves above our emotions and personalities. We have the ability to reason, to overrule our emotions and instincts, and communicate complex ideas through language. Koko the ape isn't going to tell you anything worth listening to with her sign language.

Emotional people aren't strong, they're weak, and easily controlled; like animals.

It's akin to creating a sentient program. The organic world already has, and it may have been inevitable. We've become more than the sum of our programming. Lessor flesh bots have no chance against us.

People move to the United

People move to the United States because of science?

Is this guy, Nye, mad??

This guy is a decent Saturday morning kids' television show science project tester, but to spend time on someone who states science causes people to leave their lands and cultures to come to the US [to partake(?) in science] would do well to visit a Comfort Inn.

Oh, boy. And the end: BIG THINK. LOL. The irony.

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.

Dr. Kaku seems to believe so,

Dr. Kaku seems to believe so, and when it comes to matters related to science and the industries surrounding it I'm inclined to believe him.

Haven't viewed the video. Why

Haven't viewed the video. Why don't you tell me about it if you want to. What I'm interested in, though, isn't his or someone else's thinking. I'm interested in the thinking of who I'm talking with. So, what is science, to you?

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.

What science means to me is

What science means to me is irrelevant. Dr. Kaku points out that our schools essentially fail in teaching science, the US competes at third world levels, which would fail to explain how major high technology industries continue to thrive. The point the video makes is that the US has the H1-B, aka the genius visa. Which is part of the reason for places like silicon valley popping up, they brought in the best and the brightest scientific minds from around the world, in other words people left their home lands and culture for what at one time was the offer of the American dream. Great pay, better standard of living, etc. He goes on to explain that in the US 50% of all Ph.D. candidates are foreign born. So yes, science creates business which leads open jobs, and if we can't properly fill them people will immigrate and fill them in place of American citizen's. He goes on to say that those jobs are leaving though, we are no longer so prosperous, so in turn those jobs, and geniuses, are leaving.

Your opinion about science

Your opinion about science isn't only relevant to our conversation, it's germane. You and I are talking with each other. Kaku isn't here. I don't talk with Kaku. If you want to reference him, that's fine, but to replace your argument with his, I can't spend time on. References can't be conversed with.

I'll say this much, though: I look how industry happens. What you see in people migrating to the United States to study, I see as spreading a lifestyle worldwide. When events happen and when co-incidence occurs, I start by asking myself how and why.

That people worldwide suffer and their migrations occur aren't happen chance, on whim or because of want solely. It should be clear to someone paying attention to how the world works that politics is a euphemism for control and control is what's been going on for, well, a long time and that it has migrated, broadened, patterned causes and a home base. If not for control of the world, why all the problems in the past, present and tomorrow, the future? The bad that happens on large scale is deliberate, and the means to do so involves direct and indirect relationships and from individuals together willfully or coercively and from the individual himself explicitly or subtly knowingly or unknowingly.

Change is continuous, sure, but how it has been continuous -- en mass and in uniformity, the depletion of cultures -- is without cause equal to it? By now, the year 2012, no one aspect of life concerning a lot of people is something to think about in isolation, as if nothing is connected to it as a cause or an effect, particularly the issues immigration and migration. The argument that education and technology is the cause of immigration and migration is to argue in isolation, that is, in part at the expense of other parts and their formation, the whole.

To look only at a student's reason for migrating to US for school/studies is to be without sight of other, many other, factors why he'd leave his land, hence my phrase isolated argument. From that view, yes, his migration is obvious. My interest, however, is why does he leave his country. What are the conditions he left from, what were the preceding conditions and what was going on soon before and long before the conditions that caused him to migrate took hold? Those questions are some of the ones I think about when I research and that I reflect on after I research to see if they should connect to something I come across later.

My definition of science: The study of the self.

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.

The definition already

The definition already exists. The only opening for someone like myself is interpretation of the definition, seeing as I don't intend to redefine a broad field study beyond my own knowledge. My opinion is that through the scientific method, it is currently the best and most reasonable means to explain the world around us; is it perfect? No, but it is the best current option. You are able to define science however you'd like, but the science of self is getting more specific to the psychological and/or sociological aspects of science, which are frequently on shaky ground for me as they lean towards collectivist ideas and I prefer to view people on an individual basis.

This is leaving your initial assertion which was that Bill Nye is crazy for thinking science causes people to migrate, my sole point was that it's perfectly reasonable. Jobs exist because of science, particularly in medicine and technology. People must work to survive; America has one of the largest job markets in high technology and the vast majority of American's aren't educated well enough to fill those jobs. If you want to delve into the sociological reasons why someone moves outside of improving the life of ones self and family, more power to you. I wasn't attempting to come up with a thorough explanation of the societal causes for immigration, just supporting my point. Nor was I honestly expecting to discuss the matter, if you had taken less then 5 minutes to watch the initial video I posted it seems pretty plain to see that science by creating a job market does cause immigration. All of it? Certainly not, I never even asserted most, simply that it does happen. You made what appears to be an insulting erroneous statement towards a person who's opinion I respect, I simply pointed out the mistake.

To further my point, there was an article in Bloomberg Buisinessweek a couple months ago about congress attempting to adjust immigration law to allow for more STEM (science, math, engineering, and technology) graduates to migrate in to fill positions American workers aren't qualified for. Similar articles can be found on The Hill, The Washington Post, Politico, Forbes and many others, if you don't want to read any of the articles, that's cool, but my point stands. People do immigrate to the US for science based jobs. Most of the articles also point out more people would immigrate in for said jobs, but US immigration law has strict limits on the influx of people.

Proficiency in science leads

Proficiency in science leads to financial rewards in many industries. Proficiency in "creation science" leads to financial rewards by scamming believers.

I'm not a believer in

I'm not a believer in "creation science", I would say it's a pseudoscience at best. I agree with you.

"scientifically literate

"scientifically literate voters AND TAXPAYERS"


The default position of science is skepticism...

Given that, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to be skeptical of scientific theories.


We will never know everything. Evolution is a theory.

Evolution may be a theory

but it seems to have far more evidence then the creation theory. I've actually never heard of any evidence on the creation theory.

Where is the evidence for creation? I see evidence of evolution in everything. I can even practice micro evolution with my dogs. How do you test the creation theory? Is there micro creationism that you could show me that I could test?

I just don't even understand how creationism can even be taught. Is 'god did it' every answer to questions you don't know? I guess I've always asked why too much for me to care about religion or god.

If you are sincere, take at least 15 min to hear this

Michael Behe:


Edit: you must watch at least 15 min to get to the full point.

Ok I watched the whole thing. Have you?

Not once did Behe show any evidence of a creator.

He arguments weakly that life is like a designed mousetrap(which Behe states is 'irreducibly complex' lol) or watch. I've never seen a mousetrap or watch grow, reproduce, and adapt to the environment originating internally.

Behe talks about the bacterial flagellum being 'irreducibly complex'. Which is ridiculous because not all these flagellum are exactly the same so the natural environment will allow the most effective 'design' lol to reproduce more effectively. Looks like natural selection to me.

Then he spends the last 30 minutes with random quotes and unnecessary fluff, most of it with an anti-evolution or anti-darwin slant. I couldn't really careless for the 'supposed' holes or problems with evolution. You can't just jump from 'evolution isn't perfect' to 'so that means it's designed'. That leap of logic is ridiculous! Where's the speck of evidence for a designer? There has to be more than that to compete with natural selection. I still don't even understand how creationism is even taught...


is a theory too.

The Establishment is so wrong about everything except...

Wrong about central banking
Most Wars
But the high priests of our age, (gov't subsidized) scientists and academics, must be 100% correct and unquestioned about how life began and how it evolves...never mind the 2nd law of thermodynamics....

My dad is a Biology professor and he rejects evolution as a workable theory.


My physics teacher explained it like this, if you have 100 coins head up and neatly arranged and threw them in the air, what is the chance that they will all land head up and neatly arranged? This is entropy, order TENDS to disorder. Key word here is tends, it is possible that after trying the coin thing trillions and trillions of times it will eventually be orderly. This is what happened in our Universe, Earth is the trillionth trillionth try.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

SteveMT's picture

Entropy alway increases except w/us.Living things order entropy.

In others words, living things create 'negative entropy.' Living things takes higher entropy (more disordered/disorganized) and convert it to lower entropy (more ordered/organized). That's pretty amazing when you think about it. We go against the law that says entropy always increases! However, there is a price to be paid for living things creating negative entropy, and that price is death. We cannot go against the normal positive flow of entropy forever. When we pass on, the law of entropy is again correct and complete; the circle of life.

Sorry about the aside, but this thought came to mind while reading your thoughtful comment.

I Don't think so

Do you mean when we eat we convert food to lower entropy ... because after we are born we are organized and when we live our cells become more disordered/disorganized this is what causes death so NO your theory is not sound

Eloquently stated.

Eloquently stated. Unfortunately, I am an unrepentant pedant and must inject very slightly. I'm not saying you're incorrect, just clarifying a few things. The energy required to maintain our living bodies still drives net entropy higher. The energy for most living organisms, with rare exceptions, is derived from the sun. The fusion reaction from the sun is entropic. Also the chemical reactions within organisms to take energy from the environment are also entropic. So while our bodies are, in effect, sort of a "sea of negative entropy"(a bio prof used that term), the net effect of living organisms - while still living - is still entropic.

"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises

Thanks for the Entropy word

It's an elegant description you shared. It would have to be way more than the trillionth trillionth try to keep going. Just to explain the development of a sperm cell's propulsion system boggles the mind. All the parts are either there or they are not and they are of zero benefit.

I know you aren't going to dig it, but have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe?

I'd like to pose a simple question to an evolutionist on

how they figure the math and longevity in the evolution morphology of a single-celled organisms into a complex multi-celled, multi-organic specie of ONE sex and then be able to procreate without the other sex of the same specie within the evolution time-frame of millions of years? (e.g. homosapien)

It simply is not probable that both sex of the same specie were present at the same time. The mutations which would be required for either sex is astronomical in and of itself.

To ask simply, who came first, the man or the woman? And then ask how may years apart were each present?

Let's say for argument sake that two amoebas evolved concurrently into homosapiens; each forming identical organs, the lungs, so that it could breathe, then a million years later it develops the trachea so that it can connect with the mouth to breath more efficiently. But where did the mouth come from? And could you have the mouth without the head? Could you have the nose, ears, brain, neurons, blood cells, the skull, skin and hair all at once?
Maybe the other amoeba develops its stomach first, but i'm just guessing. But you see the picture. This complex metamorphosis takes place not once but twice for most known creatures on this planet, minus bacterial, viral and other lowly creatures. Or at least once if you truly believe all life comes from a single-celled organism.

And were they looking for each other? Did they even question that there was another? If they were lucky to have existed at the same time, how long did it take for them to find each other? Was it love at first sight?

People make outlandish scientific hypotheses all the time, with plenty of holes but somehow continue to adopt them as if they were proven facts.

I'm not here trying to make argument for the Creationist per se. Although I would agree more toward the existence of higher being/beings rather than subject myself to unbelievable "accidents" to justify evolution, because it seems to be the only language the scientist were given.

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com

Confusion gallore.

First off, I would like to address the claim about amoebas becoming body parts. This is complete bogus, single-celled organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms, these organism then evolved into more complex organisms with tissues that performed different functions made of cells. These organisms evolved further and further eventually becoming the plants and animals we see today. Small organisms didn't develop into separate body parts, but rather the species itself evolved as a whole; the organism's offspring being slightly different than the parent and so on.

As to how different sexes arose in the same species, the answer is simple. Early organisms reproduced asexually, however small genetic mutations and other factors enabled some to reproduce sexually. These organisms were at a great advantage and propagated quickly.

It is an enormous simplification to speak of the American mind. Every American has his own mind.

~Ludwig von Mises

Yes I agree. I was being facetious

"First off, I would like to address the claim about amoebas becoming body parts. This is complete bogus"

But your statement about evolution is just a theory. There is no proof. I'm not saying it's false, but what I'm saying is that these subtle changes in species from one generation to another could have been designed to do just that.

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com

There is proof

Just because YOU haven't studied it and YOU were never shown the proof, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Talk about arrogance!

Each stage of the early evolution has been duplicated at some level or another. They even created actual living cells just this year from a 'non-primordial' ooze of non-living chemicals.

I believe the creationist side is the one without one single shred of proof.

We have the most complex

We have the most complex historical document...with many witnesses.

If scientists were to say

If scientists were to say “God must have done it” every time they encountered a problem that couldn’t be immediately explained, there would be no advances in our scientific understanding. The beauty of scientific investigation is that, through time, we are able to find answers to extremely complex problems. It’s such a copout to just give up and say “well, God must have done it… let’s go grab a beer.” Answers are not always obvious, and they often counter what seems logical. For example, how is it possible for all of the components of the giraffe neck: bones, muscles, nerves, blood vessels, etc… to have synchronously evolved to a greater length? For the longest time scientists were stumped by this question… So god must have done it right? Wrong! We now have a complete understanding of pleiotropic genes, and how one gene can influence multiple traits. Another classic example is the geocentric model of the solar system… When you look into the sky at night, you will observe that all the planets and stars appear to be moving. But it doesn’t feel like we are moving. So the logical assumption was that God must have placed the earth at a stationary position at the center of the universe. No need to investigate right? Just imagine how detrimental the “god must have done it” attitude would be towards science.

ANSWER THIS: Do you really want all scientists to just give up and go home?

an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government