Bill Nye mentioned several points throughout his statement where he claimed that certain proofs cannot be refuted by creationists. Let us examine some of these “proofs.”
1. Bill Nye automatically assumes that evolution is a fact. Jason DeZurik was interviewed regarding Mr. Nye’s remarks and brilliantly stated, “interpretations of facts are not facts,” very, very, true statement. Mr. Nye does not necessarily ignore evidence that could just as easily lead him to the belief in young earth creationism. I believe that he views it from a different perspective. And you know what, that is okay! What is not okay is what he is trying to propagate through his statement that we should not teach about the beliefs that we hold dear.
2. He claims that the denial of evolution is unique to the USA. Not true. I think maybe Mr. Nye has never heard of a certain Australian by the name of Ken Ham…the founder of Answers In Genesis. If you have never heard of his organization, check it out: www.answersingenesis.org.
3. Is Evolution the fundamental idea in all of the life sciences? No. It is a presupposition that influences a person in his or her pursuit of a respective scientific discipline. I had a professor by the name of Dr. Todd Pesek, who taught Pathology at Cleveland State University. He was a diehard evolutionist, but he and I agreed on many points regarding diet, fitness, and general health practices. The one difference that we had was that he believed “evolution did it,” where I insisted that “God did it.” That was truly the only difference in our beliefs. By the way, I Aced his class, which proved I did not need to believe in evolution to excel.
4. In his YouTube video, he said that some people “claim” that they don’t believe in evolution. I think that what he means is that he believes that evolution is an undeniable fact. Therefore, these people are merely in denial. To this he asks, “Why not?” It is very similar to saying that nobody can truly be an atheist because there is no way to truly “know” that there is no God. The closest you could get would be agnosticism.
5. He claims that there is no evidence for creationism. Let’s analyze this claim by taking into account Mr. Nye’s evidence.
a. He mentioned that dinosaur bones and fossils are evidence for evolution. How does he know this? Science cannot even tell us how dinosaurs died off. How can they conclude, then, that dinosaurs are proof for evolution? Creationism provides a much clearer explanation of what dinosaurs were and how they gradually became extinct.
b. His second complaint was regarding radioactivity. I’m guessing that he was referring to radioactive decay rates. This is a common point brought up by evolutionists as proof for an old earth. However, we do not know if radioactive decay has always existed or if the decay rates have always remained constant. Recent investigation has proven that decay rates can change. As a result, creationists are justified in their belief in a young earth.
c. His third, and probably strongest claim, is that distant stars are evidence for evolution and an old earth. The problem with this argument is that it is highly speculative. For one thing, nobody really knows how far away the distant stars are because calculating their distance is complicated. Even given the fact that there are stars that are probably billions of light years away, which are observable by the human eye, there are theories to account for their light reaching the earth in far less than billions of years. For instance, Albert Einstein, as part of his theory of relativity, suggested a phenomenon known as gravitational time dilation. This theory suggests that gravity and speed affect the passage of time. There are other theories, but evolutionists would be lying if they claimed that they have everything about star light figured out.
d. Are “billions of years” evidence for evolution? To him, the notion that the universe is billions of years old is a fact. He does not know this and cannot prove this because nobody alive today was at the universe’s beginning. This was a statement of faith. He trusts science to be 100% accurate on this point with no room for error. After all, could we ever name an instance in history when science was wrong?
e. The ultimate proof for Christianity is in the historic account of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the existence of Jesus were proven false, Christianity would soon follow. But, the overwhelming majority of historians (secular and Christian) agree that Jesus was real, he was killed/crucified, his disciples claimed he was resurrected and worshipped him as God, a few of his opponents claimed that they experienced Jesus’ resurrected presence and committed their lives to him, and that his tomb was and still is empty. If Jesus really was the Son of God, then the words contained in the Bible must be held as truth because he would be the only credible authority on any topic in the entire universe.
In all reality, Bill Nye’s ignorance of the rational creationist responses to these proofs is evidence of one of two realities: 1) He is truly unaware of what creationists truly believe or 2) He willingly ignores their explanations. The reason I raise this issue is because these are relatively elementary speaking points in the creation vs. evolution debate. In order to not obtain an answer that would seem feasible and reasonable enough, given the existing body of evidence, would require Mr. Nye to be either conversing with a creationist who is ignorant of his or her own stances or that he would refuse to listen. Pray for him that he might have ears to hear and eyes to see.
14 comments:
1. The facts are that the process of evolution is observed and testable. The theory of evolution, never once proven wrong is the explanation for the connection of the process.
2. Indeed, denial is not strictly in the US. However, the fervent misunderstanding is more common here.
3. Your logic is severely flawed. Just because you aced a class based off of pathology does not mean you have an in depth understanding of what caused our current pathology. The thing is that in the past people didn't have a book detailing evolution, through observation and experimentation it has been proven time and time again. You have started with your conclusion, and find ways to make facts fit them.
4. There is also no way to know that there is a god. If there were observable, objective evidence it would be the biggest discovery in history!
5. a. Dinosaur bones give details on physiology and anatomy. The death of dinosaurs has nothing to do with how they evolved and changed.
b. Radioactive decay rates can be changed very very minimally in intense laboratory situations. Why would an all powerful deity change decay rates (of all substances on earth) to the same essential period in the past? You are also ignoring geology, astronomy, archaeology, and more. Interestingly, there is a varied history as scientists perfected the methods of carbon and radiometric dating, meaning they became more accurate.
c. You try to say nobody understands the stars, but this is just a way to try and make it seem as though you are equal. In fact, scientists who dedicate their lives to research know a great deal about the stars and the many dating methods used to show the age of the universe. It's also odd that all the evidence that can be viewed now and today shows the universe expanding as though it were ~14.6 billion years old.
d. When you can observe, hypothesize, test, and show consistent results it is not "faith," it is proof. All those results point to the same conclusion.
e. Here you take historians completely out of context. Though historians agree there was a Jesus of Nazareth, you may not know that his last name wasn't "Christ." The proof of a historical figure existing does not grant him supernatural power. Unless Mohammed and Siddhartha Gautama were also right.
The thing is that your arguments will never stand the test of basic logical reasoning, and you seems to willingly ignore the massive complexity and beauty of science.
I'm going to get to all of your comments eventually, but I'm going to start small and work my way up.
First:Evolution is not observable and not testable. Natural selection is what is being observed and only works within the perameters of the genotype. Just because you say that evolution is proven doesn't make it so. What test has proven evolution? I would like to know.
Second: By definition I cannot scientifically prove that there is a God. He is supernatural and not repeatable through tests. I find your logic obscure, though. I cannot prove through experiments the existence of you. Does that make sense? Lab experiments do not prove the existence of persons but phenomena that occur.
Third: My mentioning that I aced path was simply proof that you do not need to believe in the theory of evolution to do science. I was able to comprehend the course material and learn quite independently from the belief in evolution. Also, science does start with presuppositions. They are called "hypotheses." In regards to the worldwide flood in the Bible: what would you expect to find as a result of such an event? Millions of dead creatures buried beneath the ground. I rest my case.
Fourth: Your argument regarding dino bones actually works against you here because you concede that they have nothing to do with the evolution of them.
Fifth: radioactive decay rates have been observed to change as a result of solar flares. This is a naturally occurring event. How do you think that radiocarbon dating has been perfected? you would have to know everything in order to figure that out. It is impossible to know how accurate they truly are, but it is very obvious that there are inconsistencies within the method. That is observable.
sixth: Same thing about the stars. You write as though these people know everything about the stars. Another class I aced was physics. I can tell you from my physics classes that people are a lot less certain about the stars than what they would like to pretend. Plus, the mathematical equations they use are lots of times very presumptuous.
Seventh: Yes, I know that Jesus' last name was not Christ. Why do you even bring that up? The proof of his existence brings up many other questions, such as: why does a movement still exist today that bears his name? It's been 2,000 years since he walked the earth!
First, Just because you say something, also does not prove it. For example: natural selection is a process of evolution. Natural selection is only the process of members of a population either dying or surviving based on the environment and individual traits. Evolution also explains genetic drift and random mutation, which help to diversify populations so that they may survive differing circumstances. There is no evidence that evolution only works within a certain genotype or kingdom. In fact, the processes of evolution that have been shown to work fit theories that explain the diversity of the animal kingdom from a common ancestor. The processes of evolution have been proven in experimentation, usually using bacteria, viruses, or insects. This is simply due to the ease of manipulating genes, short life cycles, and mutation rates.
Second, you are trying to over-simplify scientific experimentation in order to bring theology and science to the same level. You could, in fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove my existence. You need some basic philosophy classes to understand the quintillion principle that you can always make up addition doubt or counter arguments, but that does not mean they have any real weight.
Third, I do not need to understand grammar to spell. That is essentially what you are talking about. Grammar is a more complex idea that in part decides why words are spelled the way they are, but since we don't care so much why we spell a word but rather how to, we do not need grammar to learn spelling. A hypothesis, is in a simple sense an "educated guess." Scientists create hypotheses in order to prove them wrong. Bad scientists change results to match their hypotheses. Good scientists modify the hypothesis and retest, then have it peer reviewed and tested by others. There are many logical fallacies with the global flooding, but just show me one peer-reviewed research paper in a scientific journal that has not been completely ripped apart. The global flood is often considered to be the flooding of the fertile crescent.
Fourth,do try to read entirely. I said the death or extinction has nothing to do with evolution. Dinosaur bones give details on physiology and anatomy--which have been studied and connected to other species.
Fifth: You are still ignoring geology, astronomy, archaeology, and more. When all of these methods gives non-random dates that coincide, it goes beyond reasonable doubt. Now, solar flares only affect a few radioactive isotopes in very small ways, what about other isotopes? Also, there are primordial nuclides and radiogenic nuclides that can be traced to supernovae that existed before our current solar system. There are too many different forms of dating, giving precise numbers for you to dismiss them all.
Sixth: You took a class on physics and now you know more than multiple-Phd astrophysicists? Scientists don't pretend to know everything, that's why gravity is still a theory. You seem to be saying they know nothing, while claiming that religion that has had to backtrack numerous times throughout history has the answers.
Seventh: I bring it up because you take mere existence as proof of supernatural ability. If time is an issue, I look forward to you converting to Buddhism as Siddhartha Gautama was born ~563BCE. (Another point you ignored during your rebuttal.)
You may want to look into moral intuitionism, which is where a person ignores evidence or natural fact to propagate something they believe and cannot let go of.
I really don't understand why you are saying that I am ignoring geology, astronomy, archaeology and other sciences. You have not provided any examples that I need to refute regarding how I am ignoring those sciences. Please provide an example of something I am ignoring.
You still have not provided a test or experiment that has proven evolution. You continue to say that evolution is proven it is not. Natural selection is one of the pieces of evidence used to try to justify the belief in macro-evolution. But, there have been no transitional fossils discovered in the fossil record that prove evolution of any sort in a macro sense.
I do not merely point to existence as proof. My point is that Jesus is real and his miracles have been noteworthy to more than just christians who were alive at the time of his existence. The Jews never denied his miracles for crying out loud! certain of their writings even called him a magician.
At the moment, I do not have time to respond to the rest of your post but I will attempt to get to it tomorrow. I encourage you to step outside of your box and maybe research this guy named Jesus and maybe see what other creationists have to say, if you are truly interested.
Thank you for your patience. I am going to respond to your post in multiple parts so it does not appear overwhelming.
Part 1: Jesus, Siddhartha, and Muhammad.
The claim you make about Siddhartha Guatama is true. However, you may be unaware that the first written documents concerning the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama were not written until after Jesus' ministry. This means that about 500 years passed between Siddhartha and the first recorded documents about his life! That's not to say that makes them unreliable, but it does make the contents of those documents questionable in regards to originality. You would be relying on 500 years of oral tradition. It's too likely that things were added or taken away from his original teachings. Also, Siddhartha never claimed to be God.
The prophet Muhammad actually acknowledged Jesus as being the greatest prophet or all! The biggest difference between Islam and Christianity is the identity of Jesus. Islam says he is ot the Son of God and did not die for anyone's sins. They say that he was taken up to heaven before he could be crucified. Muslims believe that Jesus was greater than Muhammad, they just believe that Muhammad set the record straight concerning the life of Jesus. They also believe that Muhammad died on earth and was buried, never to be brought back to life, like Jesus.
Many believe that the first letter of the New Testament was written in 36 AD (The Epistle of James) Conservative scholars suppose that the first Gospel was written sometime not long after that.Despite ppl claiming that Mark was the first Gospel, I believe Matthew was the first to be written, because it was written to a Jewish audience and the Jewish church was indeed the first church. This would put the date of Matthew's Gospel at a very early date if it were true. Regardless, Matthew was an eyewitness, John was an eyewitness, Mark received the information for his Gospel from Peter, and Luke collaborated with many eyewitnesses to formulate his Gospel. This all would have occurred within the first 70 years after Jesus (I would put Matthew a little before 40 AD)! That is a lot better than 500!
There are five conclusive facts that historians agree on with Jesus
1)He died by crucifixion.
2)His disciples believed that he rose from the dead and appeared to them.
3)Paul, who persecuted the church, was suddenly changed and converted to Christianity.
4)James, Jesus' skeptical brother and pharisee, was suddenly changed and converted.
5)Jesus' tomb was found empty.
I find this case to be very compelling at the least.
You misunderstand my mentioning of physics. I have been supposing that you think I know nothing about the topic. I was merely proving otherwise. Truth is, in regards to light, nobody fully comprehends it. It has a nature unlike anything else. It has particle properties and wave properties. This makes it very hard to comprehend; and, in combination with its speed, its very hard to observe. Combine this with the notion of phenomon of starlight and you have one hard to solve riddle on your hands.
Creationists typically have three types of responses to starlight (and they could even work in combination):
1)It is possible that light travels in Riemannian space opposed to geometric space. Einstein developed his theory of relativity with Riemannian space in his mind. BTW the concept of Riemmanian space is not limited to creationists, but was actually developed by an evolutionist!
2)There is evidence that throughout the course of history the speed of light may have decreased. The amateur scientist who proposed this by comparing the speed of light as measured in the past century to the current speed of light. Still speculative.
3)The universe was created by God in a mature state, meaning that the starlight was already reaching the earth, bypassing the billions of years that it may require for light to travel that distance. God created the stars intending them to be seen.
When dealing with physics on a universal scale, especially in regards to origins, there is a lot of guestimation. Sound theories are devised, but many theories contradict one another. For instance, the Big Bang theory, though the most popular models for the universe's origin is riddled with flaws and is not the only theory that has been devised regarding origins by secular scientists. In fact, some of the theories are far more sophisticated and more difficult to understand.
For Instance:
Inflationary hypothesis
Multiple universe (hypothesis or theory, not sure)
String Theory
Oscillating Universe Theory
We spoke about each one of these in my physics course. My prof found string theory most compelling.
The fact that decay rates CAN change at all is proof that uniformitarian science (assuming all processes remain constant) is wrong. I believe the global flood would have changed many processes of the earth including the atmosphere. THis could greatly alter decay rates. I made my Bio prof mad with this point because he knows that geologic data does reveal that the atmosphere has changed. My assumption, therefore, is credible.
BTW How do you know , or does anybody know, that these nuclides predate our solar system? Nobody observed these events or can prove when they happened. If they can, by all means, present the data and convince me! What test was performed to accomplish this and how can it be proven beyond the possibility of any other interpretation?
The argument of homology is bunk. Common anatomy does not point to a common ancestor but a common Creator. Are bats and birds related in an evolutionary sense? I have never heard anybody make this claim. At the very least you must concede that you do not know, or that the answer is definitely no.
Science of origins and history cannot be tested in a lab. In fact, the Big Bang defies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. These are laws, not theories. Every secular claim of origins presupposes a process of creation that cannot be observed or repeated. This by definition, is supernatural. Creationists are often rejected from peer-review journals because they admit a supernatural origin. That's why they have had to create their own journals.
I have a few more responses left, but I have run out of time. I will address the so-called exmple of evolution in the laboratory in my next set of responses. Thank you, again for you patience.
In regards to your comment on my challenge that we cannot through testing prove that ppl exist; there are indeed philosophies that endorse the idea that we are mere dreams and I am sure you are aware of them. Like me, you agree that these philosophies are absurd because there is no way to prove or disprove them.
The way I should have posed my challenge is in regard to personality. Your being composes of more than physical components. How you are expressed through your personality, cannot be tested. True there are personality profiles and such, but those cannot prove a person's existence nor can they truly identify who a person is.
Likewise, God is a being. People can tell you that they experience him in different ways, but you do not have to accept their testimony on such a topic. It's no different than if you spoke to someone about me. Your words to a person you encounter might be, "Wow, that Bill Seng, he's, like, the greatest guy in the world!" But the other person might reply, "What are you talking about? That guys a loser?" There could even be another person present who says, "Bill Seng? You guys are spreading your fairy tales again." I think I've made this point as about absurd as possible.
Finally: Evolution does not explain mutation.
Mutation, in fact, is not entirely random. The creation of DNA is not random, it follows an orderly process. When that process is disrupted for whatever REASON mutation occurs. Claiming that bacteria, viruses, or insects proves evolution is flawed. This is a classic example of "bait and switch." It actually proves natural selection. Before I go into detail let me ask a question. In each respective experiment, what did the scientists start with? What did they end up with when it was all finished? Something new or was it just a variation of what already existed? Now, let's go into detail...
Using bacteria as an example, as it is a popular example - The Claim is that bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics is an example that proves the process of evolution. The test proceeds as follows: Bacteria are inserted into a petri dish. The antibiotic is added and it kills off most of the bacteria. Some of it survives and reproduces yielding offspring that are antibiotic resistant! Are these an evolutionary step to antibiotic resistant bacteria? Kinda, sorta...not really.
What is not mentioned about the mutant strand is when it is reinserted to a culture of the non-antibiotic resistant bacteria, the resistant strand eventually dies off. Why? Because the mutant strand lacks the genetic information that makes it surviveable amongst the normal strand in normal conditions. The normal strand is actually a more healthy strand of bacteria. But the normal strand lacks antibiotic resistance. This is Natural Selection at its finest! Just as I said before: "Evolution has never been proven in the laboratory!"
Now, just for the sake of it, let's discuss the word evolution briefly. It can mean more than one thing. Its simplest definition is "change over time." I believe in change over time. In fact, with the bacteria, if antibiotics were used in every case of bacterial infection, it is possible that the resistant strand would become the prominent strand because the normal strand would not be able to compete. This would be called, in a loose sense "evolution." But it is accomplished through natural selection. The bacteria starts as bacteria and ends as bacteria. Just as in the other examples, insects and viruses: you start with a fly, you end with a fly. You start with a virus, you end with a virus. This leads me to the grander theory of evolution.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution was based on the concept that natural selection was evolution's driving force. Over millions of years, the finch might become an elephant. This has never been proven. The only "evolution" that has been observed, and it has been observed on a massive scale, is dogs dividing into varieties of dogs, cats dividing into varieties of cats, horses dividing into varieties of haorses, and humans dividing into varieties of humans. It is a very easy concept to grasp. If you can point to me one example where one organism has become a completely different kind of organism, you might convince me.
Claiming that it can be observed through the geologic column is lame. It cannot prove that the animals in the respective layers evolved into anything. It only proves that they died. In fact, the process of fossilization proves a rapid burial and rapid burial for all of those organisms is great evidence for the worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible.
Finally: Evolution does not explain mutation.
Mutation, in fact, is not entirely random. The creation of DNA is not random, it follows an orderly process. When that process is disrupted for whatever REASON mutation occurs. Claiming that bacteria, viruses, or insects proves evolution is flawed. This is a classic example of "bait and switch." It actually proves natural selection. Before I go into detail let me ask a question. In each respective experiment, what did the scientists start with? What did they end up with when it was all finished? Something new or was it just a variation of what already existed? Now, let's go into detail...
Using bacteria as an example, as it is a popular example - The Claim is that bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics is an example that proves the process of evolution. The test proceeds as follows: Bacteria are inserted into a petri dish. The antibiotic is added and it kills off most of the bacteria. Some of it survives and reproduces yielding offspring that are antibiotic resistant! Are these an evolutionary step to antibiotic resistant bacteria? Kinda, sorta...not really.
What is not mentioned about the mutant strand is when it is reinserted to a culture of the non-antibiotic resistant bacteria, the resistant strand eventually dies off. Why? Because the mutant strand lacks the genetic information that makes it surviveable amongst the normal strand in normal conditions. The normal strand is actually a more healthy strand of bacteria. But the normal strand lacks antibiotic resistance. This is Natural Selection at its finest! Just as I said before: "Evolution has never been proven in the laboratory!"
Now, just for the sake of it, let's discuss the word evolution briefly. It can mean more than one thing. Its simplest definition is "change over time." I believe in change over time. In fact, with the bacteria, if antibiotics were used in every case of bacterial infection, it is possible that the resistant strand would become the prominent strand because the normal strand would not be able to compete. This would be called, in a loose sense "evolution." But it is accomplished through natural selection. The bacteria starts as bacteria and ends as bacteria. Just as in the other examples, insects and viruses: you start with a fly, you end with a fly. You start with a virus, you end with a virus. This leads me to the grander theory of evolution.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution was based on the concept that natural selection was evolution's driving force. Over millions of years, the finch might become an elephant. This has never been proven. The only "evolution" that has been observed, and it has been observed on a massive scale, is dogs dividing into varieties of dogs, cats dividing into varieties of cats, horses dividing into varieties of haorses, and humans dividing into varieties of humans. It is a very easy concept to grasp. If you can point to me one example where one organism has become a completely different kind of organism, you might convince me.
Claiming that it can be observed through the geologic column is lame. It cannot prove that the animals in the respective layers evolved into anything. It only proves that they died. In fact, the process of fossilization proves a rapid burial and rapid burial for all of those organisms is great evidence for the worldwide flood mentioned in the Bible.
Bill, Great post and great discussion!
one comment ... I would suggest that there is no such thing as an atheist. Everyone has a god they trust and believe in ...
Some understand God to be the Creator of all things ... and some beleive in replacement gods: idols such as themselves, their money, even their worldview etc. _____________ (just fill in the blank).
My question to your friend William is this: How's that approach to life working for ya?
Post a Comment