Bill Nye "The Science Guy" Hates Creationism

Yeah, I'm familiar with the multiverse theory from my philosophy courses, but I'm not familiar with string theory and the like.

I can't wait to hear what Beakman has to say on the subject.

or that our universe sprang from a black hole in another universe and that black holes in our universe create others.

600 years ago people still thought that the world was flat. 500 years ago people thought that the sun orbited the earth. people are getting smarter. answers to the universe are becoming clearer every day.

i, for one, am glad that religion is providing us all of these answers.

Milhouse said:

600 years ago people still thought that the world was flat. 500 years ago people thought that the sun orbited the earth. people are getting smarter. answers to the universe are becoming clearer every day.

i, for one, am glad that religion is providing us all of these answers.

Click to expand...

BigTreeDeac said:

Much like a fish born in a soundproof and completely black tank would know the boundaries of the tank while having no way to perceive the world outside it, in a multiverse wed have no way of perceiving anything outside our universe hence how it could look like we appeared from nothing when that isnt the case.

Click to expand...

seventwofour said:

Science is built upon empiricism. You're putting faith in the inerrancy of human observation.

Click to expand...

BigTreeDeac said:

The first part of your statement is just flat out wrong. The only place where one would potentially put faith in inerrancy of observation is at the level of individual research papers which I seriously doubt most people on this board have read more than a handful of.

Click to expand...

To follow up on this, I wanted to say that I wasn't questioning the integrity of individuals working in scientific fields or discounting the great advances they've made for mankind. I was challenging the idea that every phenomenon that occurs in this universe and outside of it is observable by humans. Science does a great job with the tools that it has, but how can one be so sure that nothing exists outside of what we can empirically observe?

seventwofour said:

Yeah, I'm familiar with the multiverse theory from my philosophy courses, but I'm not familiar with string theory and the like.

Click to expand...

WRT to the multiverse.

In membrane-theory, all universes are created by collisions between branes. Each collision creates a new brane(universe) that is completely separate from the others except for the force of gravity. Interestingly enough, we have possible evidence of this type of interaction. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

In quantum theory, the multiverse is vastly different. There is a unique universe for all possible histories and futures. Every time a random, quantum event occurs, a new world(universe) is created. You can easily envision this by looking into the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. Before a measurement is taken, the cat exists in both states, dead and alive. Therefore, a separate universe must exist for each state.

TWDeac said:

WRT to the multiverse.

In membrane-theory, all universes are created by collisions between branes. Each collision creates a new brane(universe) that is completely separate from the others except for the force of gravity. Interestingly enough, we have possible evidence of this type of interaction. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

In quantum theory, the multiverse is vastly different. There is a unique universe for all possible histories and futures. Every time a random, quantum event occurs, a new world(universe) is created. You can easily envision this by looking into the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. Before a measurement is taken, the cat exists in both states, dead and alive. Therefore, a separate universe must exist for each state.

Click to expand...

Agree with those indicating there need be no conflict between an understanding of science and religion. Whatever is true, we should seek it and not fear it. And we should probably be a hell of a lot more humble than we seem to act sometimes on both sides of that isle.

As a Christian, I think it's not advisable for Christian parents to teach their children YEC...except that they understand what it is. To my mind, you're just setting your kids up to leave the faith when they (might) someday realize that YEC is pretty looney. And if you've drilled into them that YEC is an article upon which your faith rests...? If you value your faith/religion, why undermine it so? OK, I think I understand the rationale and culture, but find it regrettable from both religious and scientific perspectives.

seventwofour said:

To follow up on this, I wanted to say that I wasn't questioning the integrity of individuals working in scientific fields or discounting the great advances they've made for mankind. I was challenging the idea that every phenomenon that occurs in this universe and outside of it is observable by humans. Science does a great job with the tools that it has, but how can one be so sure that nothing exists outside of what we can empirically observe?

Click to expand...

One cannot and every scientist I know acknowledges this. I think the main difference is scientists solely rely on that which can be observed, whether doing so is right or wrong, rather than rely on a premise for which one cannot observe existence as positive or negative. Cosmology becomes a little more complicated but even there whatever the latest Theory of Everything may be its rooted in observable phenomena. It is in fact our inability to fully observe our environment which drives novel scientific techniques and technology. I think what it ultimately boils down to is a scientist has an evolving sense of the universe and it's origins based upon newly acquired information whereas a more strict religious person holds the same understanding of origin that has been held for centuries if not millennia. This is where heads get butted because neither side has a true capacity to understand the other sides stance. A scientist can't understand how one can conclude something that is unobservable and a religious person can't understand why a scientist only goes on the limited info which is currently observed and known. And again I'm sorry for misrepresenting your stance and accusing you of questioning scientific integrity, growing up in the South has made me a little defensive on this subject.

ConnorEl said:

Agree with those indicating there need be no conflict between an understanding of science and religion. Whatever is true, we should seek it and not fear it. And we should probably be a hell of a lot more humble than we seem to act sometimes on both sides of that isle.

As a Christian, I think it's not advisable for Christian parents to teach their children YEC...except that they understand what it is. To my mind, you're just setting your kids up to leave the faith when they (might) someday realize that YEC is pretty looney. And if you've drilled into them that YEC is an article upon which your faith rests...? If you value your faith/religion, why undermine it so? OK, I think I understand the rationale and culture, but find it regrettable from both religious and scientific perspectives.

Click to expand...

IMO this goes to the point where if it is okay to interpret some things in the Bible as not literal then is it okay to interpret other things in it the same way? Many believe the Bible is in fact the infallible word of an all-knowing God and thus unimpeachable. When you change to a position of the Bible is a guide then it goes to my point, that some took badly, that you are now within the realm of spirituality and have successfully left behind rigid dogmas (which is a good thing imo).

I understand. And I think it's practically impossible to take the bible "literally", though I know there are those that think they do. Any understanding of the words of scripture involves interpretation to some degree. And that's true for most anything written.

correct. that's why it's the word of man, not the word of god.

DCDeac said:

I find it fascinating that people will distrust science to the extent that they can actually believe we're incapable of determining whether the earth is more than 6,000 years old... But fuck it strap 'em to a chair and let a magic computer invoke a laser beam to slice open a flap in their cornea and burn off tissue inside your moving eyeball so you can go to the Orange Park mall and watch Adam Sandler flicks without glasses.

Where's a Louis CK diatribe when you need one...

Click to expand...

This. And you could substitute dam' near anything for the laser beam (splitting an atom, space flight, et al).

TWDeac said:

Of course we can ask what came before. String theory, M-theory, multiverse theory, brane theory. These all show possible reasons for our existence.

The problem is that we can never go outside of our given universe. We can't look out into the multiverse. We will never know for certain what came before us.

I'd argue that it is equally intellectually disingenuous to attribute the beginning of our universe to an all powerful supernatural being. God of the gaps, and all that.

You make a supernatural being your brute fact. I make the universe mine.

Click to expand...

This is where I disagree. The "God of the gaps" argument when it comes to the beginning of the universe doesnt really sway me. I dont think people are "filling in" God as the beginning of the universe based upon some ignorance. I think most people are filling in God at the beginning based upon their knowledge of science. The basic question of how can something come from nothing goes against what most of us learned when we were taught Newton in physics. Thus, God as creator of the universe is neither a "god of the gaps" nor intellectually disingenuous. It's ascribing a supernatural phenomenon to what many feel must have been a supernatural event given our current knowledge of how the world works.

Les Grossman said:

This is where I disagree. The "God of the gaps" argument when it comes to the beginning of the universe doesnt really sway me. I dont think people are "filling in" God as the beginning of the universe based upon some ignorance. I think most people are filling in God at the beginning based upon their knowledge of science. The basic question of how can something come from nothing goes against what most of us learned when we were taught Newton in physics. Thus, God as creator of the universe is neither a "god of the gaps" or intellectually disingenuous. It's ascribing a supernatural phenomenon to what many feel must have been a supernatural event given our current knowledge of how the world works.

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree, I guess. I don't think it is ever acceptable to attribute something to a supernatural phenomenon, even something as strange as the big bang.

None of the several "Theory of Everything" answer the question of how something came out of nothing. If our universe came from the collision of two other universes, then where did those universes come from etc. The only possible explanations are that something actually came from nothing which is beyond explanation, or there has always been something, which is also beyond explanation.

You might counter that it is unacceptable to put faith in something outside of observation or explanation. However this is problematic since all of empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past. This premise cannot be known through observation. This is not to invalidate science, it is simply to remind scientists to be careful when dismissing outright things which are not based on observation.

RChildress107 said:

None of the several "Theory of Everything" answer the question of how something came out of nothing. If our universe came from the collision of two other universes, then where did those universes come from etc. The only possible explanations are that something actually came from nothing which is beyond explanation, or there has always been something, which is also beyond explanation.

You might counter that it is unacceptable to put faith in something outside of observation or explanation. However this is problematic since all of empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past. This premise cannot be known through observation. This is not to invalidate science, it is simply to remind scientists to be careful when dismissing outright things which are not based on observation.

Click to expand...

I'm very scientific minded, not at all religious, but thought this was a poignant post. I really can't wrap my mind around how something could come from nothing, or how something always existed without a "creation" event. Now my head hurts.

RChildress107 said:

None of the several "Theory of Everything" answer the question of how something came out of nothing. If our universe came from the collision of two other universes, then where did those universes come from etc. The only possible explanations are that something actually came from nothing which is beyond explanation, or there has always been something, which is also beyond explanation.

You might counter that it is unacceptable to put faith in something outside of observation or explanation. However this is problematic since all of empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past. This premise cannot be known through observation. This is not to invalidate science, it is simply to remind scientists to be careful when dismissing outright things which are not based on observation.

Click to expand...

Ok, so I've dipped out for a while on this thread, but this argument comes up time and time again, and honestly, it's not that much of a barrier for science to cross. People who allow this to be their stumbling block should think of time in a less linear fashion, especially when you're talking on a universal scale like this. It's useful for us to think about time as a linear dimension in Cartesian space, but it's almost certainly not an inherent property of the universe. If you have to think about time like that, forwards and backwards, and in a straight line, then the best thing I can tell you is that there was no beginning, there was no nothingness and then somethingness. Our own big bang may be attributable to a date 15 billion years ago, but to try to keep going back to "what came before that" is reductionist. Because we haven't filled in the gaps yet about the precursors or prerequisites to the big bang (materially speaking), this is a facile argument for creationists, but it shouldn't be the backbone for any arguments.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by "all empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past." Entropy and enthalpy, man. Shit changes and the universe is always different for it.