• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" Hates Creationism

Question: If you truly believe in a Creator God, then why fear science?

Possible example of this scenario: You believe in God and you're all for the advance and pursuit of scientific knowledge. So carbon dating says the world is XXXXXX years old and a new breakthrough theory proposes an incredible and rational leap in the evolutionary process. Rock on. Let's keep digging. And digging. You are so confident in the power and dominion and existence of God that you have no fear what we will uncover. With this confidence, you can accept the theories of dinosaur extinction and a multimillion year old Earth without qualms. You can teach your kids both God and biology/physics.

Final Question: What if most science is, in fact, the continuing pursuit of the end source of creation (i.e., God).

That's pretty much how I feel.
 
I've not read all 7 pages of this so forgive me if someone mentioned this.....I am not a scientist but I damn well believe in evolution and think creationism is a bunch of crap. However, I do believe in God and I was reading about the big bang theory the other day with one of my sons (he is definitely a future scientist). Anyway, it was describing how the big bang basically began as a single point of intense energy and then "bang" and the universe as we know it began to form over billions of years.

It struck me that the big bang was the perfect way to explain God's creation of the universe while also using science to describe the effects. If that single point of intense energy was God's hand and he decided that he was going to create "life, the universe, and everything", then the big bang is the moment God made it happen and then science describes all the factors that God set into motion that went into the universe forming, life evolving and eventually me typing at this keyboard. Obviously, this does not jive with the bible but it seems a way for people like me to believe wholly in science and still believe that God created us. I'm sure both sides can find flaws in my argument but it is comforting in a wierd way for me think about it.

This is similar to my way of thinking. As for it not jiving with the Bible, I think that the creation story is a way of explaining the universe to people who were much more primitive in many ways than we are today. If the Bible had explained that there were other planets and galaxies that were all part of one Universe so vast that it is almost impossible to comprehend, no one would have understood a word of it. Instead, it was explained in a way the people could understand, even if it wasn't factually true. Even if alien life is found to exist, that wouldn't prove that there is no God, just that people in the time of the Bible were unable to comprehend that as an option. Today, we have a much better understanding of science and investigative analysis and so forth, so Science reveals information to us about the Universe rather than prophets and scripture. Inspiration is the driving force behind advances in science, and who can say whether that inspiration is divine in nature or not? Ultimately, science and religion should not be at odds with each other. It is people stuck using scripture as a crutch instead of a guide that truly hold society back.
 
To me, the hybrid creationism/evolution belief is just post-hoc rationalization of beliefs in scripture after science has pretty much invalidated the accuracy of them.

Now if the bible told me something that science two thousand years later discovered to be true, then I would give it alot more creedence. But as it is, all of the mystical stuff only happened to sheep herders 2,100 years ago.
 
Last edited:
To me, the hybrid creationism/evolution belief is just post-hoc rationalization of beliefs in scripture after science has pretty much invalidated the accuracy of them.

Now if the bible told me something that science two thousand years later discovered to be true, then I would give it alot more creedence. But as it is, all of the mystical stuff only happened to sheep herders 2,100 years ago.

I feel similarly. Without impugning anyone and just speaking for myself, I'm surprised at how much I rationalized my beliefs when I was religious just to make it work. When I was finished, I had some amalgam of biblical and sciency stuff and it wasn't all literally how it was written but it didn't seem to contradict itself much but... well you get the picture. I realized, one day, that what I had just didn't fit. It didn't fit religion and it didn't fit science and it was just me trying to make sense of things.

When you start forgiving people for being wrong because they were uneducated and it was thousands of years ago then you reduce your religion to the "God of the Gaps." One day I tried to look at the big picture and came to the (personal) conclusion that it's basically just that, uneducated people trying to make sense of things. I'm in a much better position to do that these days than they were.

I don't mean for this to begin a tangent about the validity of the texts or religion itself; it's just context of my related thoughts on the matter.
 
To me, the hybrid creationism/evolution belief is just post-hoc rationalization of beliefs in scripture after science has pretty much invalidated the accuracy of them.

Now if the bible told me something that science two thousand years later discovered to be true, then I would give it alot more creedence. But as it is, all of the mystical stuff only happened to sheep herders 2,100 years ago.

That would make sense if you were talking about people who were 2000 years old.
 
Being spiritual is cool. Being religious just means that you are doing a good job of managing the cognitive dissonance in your head.

**Disagree? Post why. I'd love to hear arguments justifying even some of the inane and positively illogical things held as absolute truth by even educated people.

Going by wiki's definition spirituality is:
elief in an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality;[1] an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his/her being; or the "deepest values and meanings by which people live."[2] Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life. Spiritual experiences can include being connected to a larger reality, yielding a more comprehensive self; joining with other individuals or the human community; with nature or the cosmos; or with the divine realm.[3] Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life.[4] It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.

Like I said, very cool. Religion's dogmas, damnation, and absolutism is to reiterate...very uncool.
 
Last edited:
To me, the hybrid creationism/evolution belief is just post-hoc rationalization of beliefs in scripture after science has pretty much invalidated the accuracy of them.

Now if the bible told me something that science two thousand years later discovered to be true, then I would give it alot more creedence. But as it is, all of the mystical stuff only happened to sheep herders 2,100 years ago.

This would be true is the only understanding of the Genesis creation narrative pre-Darwin was the one put forth by the YECs. This, however, is not the case. None of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, or John Wesley believed that scripture necessitated or even taught a 6 24-hour day creation act.

to quote Augustine:

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture
 
Still seems like rationalization to me.

"That part is BS, but the rest of it is absolutely true!!!"
 
Science is built upon empiricism. You're putting faith in the inerrancy of human observation.

Anybody speaking in absolutes is hard to take seriously. Lots of brilliant minds on either side of the debate. I have a hard time getting beyond the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural force. It's that idea that intrigues me to pursue a better understanding of spirituality.

But yeah, most religious expressions of that search are way too legalistic and narrow.
 
Science is built upon empiricism. You're putting faith in the inerrancy of human observation.

Anybody speaking in absolutes is hard to take seriously. Lots of brilliant minds on either side of the debate. I have a hard time getting beyond the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural force. It's that idea that intrigues me to pursue a better understanding of spirituality.

But yeah, most religious expressions of that search are way too legalistic and narrow.

Take a supernatural explanation out of the equation and the question is easily answered. Space and time began at the moment of the big bang. Asking what came before is a meaningless.
 
It seems a little intellectually disingenuous to not ask what came before. How is it meaningless?

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

Anybody speaking in absolutes is hard to take seriously. Lots of brilliant minds on either side of the debate. I have a hard time getting beyond the cosmological argument for the existence of a supernatural force. It's that idea that intrigues me to pursue a better understanding of spirituality.

But yeah, most religious expressions of that search are way too legalistic and narrow.

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. Evolution isn't subject to problems with flawed observation because of the shear volume of observations involved. What you are basically saying is "Every Evolutionary Biologist is a liar". And I get sick of hearing that people can't talk in absolutes. Yes you can about certain things. I can say with absolute certainty every living thing on this Earth will die. It's hard to take somebody seriously who doesn't think that. There is a lot of science, especially biological sciences, which cannot be said with absolute certainty and all scientists acknowledge this. I'm an Immunologist who has made several key discoveries which advanced the understanding of how the human immune system combats pathogenic infection but I would never claim my findings are true with absolute certainty because they can never be proven with absolute certainty. I can however tell you with absolute truth and conviction that you have an immune system. We all do, even the people living in a bubble have one theirs is just highly defective. Evolution is the same way. I cannot tell you with certainty how evolution was carried out from bacteria to humans but when one truly studies the evidence there is simply no denying it happened. Trust me, I'm a doctor.

Eta: research papers which propose conclusions based upon observations which had not previously been seen are always met with skepticism by fellow scientists. It can take decades before a novel observation is widely accepted in even a subset of a field. Scientists don't even place complete faith in the ability of colleagues to make accurate observations so if you think that is what science is about you couldn't be more incorrect
 
Last edited:
Yeah bro, sorry I misrepresented what I think. I meant that people who speak in absolutes about the existence or non-existence of a supreme being are hard to take seriously. Not in general. I actually had that caveat written, but it made the sentence clumsy so I took it out.

I believe in evolution. I think you and TW are mistaking what I said as an argument for a theistic god. I'm just saying the idea of the initial conditions of the universe from nothing don't match up with my understanding of space and time. Obviously that is limited, and TW I would appreciate any descriptions of the origins of the universe based on the theories you described above that could be understood by someone with a limited scientific background.
 
I apologize if my post seems a bit antagonistic. I get a bit fired up about that subject in particular because it is a very common misconception which serves to illustrate how truly misunderstood my profession is at times. Scientists take great pride in our work and welcome criticism of said work. We do not however appreciate people dismissing our work simply because of the potential for flawed observation since experiments are designed specifically to limit those issues. Flawed observations and/or faulty conclusions happen but they are not the norm and science should not be viewed as though they are the norm

And good on Bill Nye for speaking the truth. I actually clapped the first time I heard his "rant".
 
Yeah bro, sorry I misrepresented what I think. I meant that people who speak in absolutes about the existence or non-existence of a supreme being are hard to take seriously. Not in general. I actually had that caveat written, but it made the sentence clumsy so I took it out.

I believe in evolution. I think you and TW are mistaking what I said as an argument for a theistic god. I'm just saying the idea of the initial conditions of the universe from nothing don't match up with my understanding of space and time. Obviously that is limited, and TW I would appreciate any descriptions of the origins of the universe based on the theories you described above that could be understood by someone with a limited scientific background.

Sorry I misunderstood you too. I would agree speaking in absolutes about supernatural beings is not a great position to take. I do not believe in any God or an afterlife but I'd be crazy to say I know it didn't exist with absolute certainty

Im not TW but one idea of a multiverse is that we exist as one universe in a "sea" of universes. Some theorize our universe originated from the collision of two other universes in the multiverse. This is, I believe, one of the origin theories. 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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top