Bill Nye vs Those Who DeNye – A Discussion
Bill Nye recently posted a YouTube video titled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children”. I agree with him totally, except for the point that he makes about the denialism being unique to the United States. We see some factors of that here in the Australia, not to mention the denialism coming from certain sectors of Islam. That aside, I think he makes some really salient points here. Watch it below.
This caused members of The Creation Museum to respond. Ken Ham and some of the “Science Guys” from the museum are posted below.
Ken Ham: Bill Nye the Humanist Guy
Creation Museum’s “Science Guys”
I don’t really have much to say about these responses, it’s too painful for my brain to occupy such a challenged space as this. Let’s pick them apart in the comments shall we?
I am a blogger who is attempting to make sense of the world. The opinions and statements made in this blog are my own, and bear no relation to my workplace, or any non-blog related activities 
I really impressed by your post.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI am happy to find so many good point here in the post writing is simply great thanks for sharing.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThere is a god because my Aunt Hilda says so and she finished the third grade before she turned thirteen and married Brother Humthumper.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeNOW FOR THE WORLD
DANCE, MOTHERF*CKERS, DANCE
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likewe have more surprises in store, little pribble
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThe gish-galloping of Ken Ham means I too have to leave that 3rd video for later. Exhausting.
For me Nye's naivety shines through:
1. teaching evolution isn't uniquely problematic for the US, it's uniquely controversial (US creationists are litigious)
2. the creationist worldview isn't disappearing, and where its popularly wanes it isn't a LACK of evidence doing it
3. academia cares if an idea appears "crazy, untenable, inconsistent" but the individual human animal is blind to that
Exhibit A is Mr Ken Ham:
1. the science/humanist agenda is: to insist that states resist teaching their citizens "fictions" about their world
2. umm so that unlikely "evolution" idea has nothing to do with the GENETIC ENGINEERING that scientists do?
3. we all want to protect kids from indoctrination, it's just that we're pretty sure Genesis 1:1-3 is the only "doctrine"
Hey did anybody else notice that frightening edit after "christians aren't frightened to teach their children about science" ...how did that shout out to science-loving jesus fans REALLY end ?? haha ;)
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI stopped when Ken Ham argued that humanism and evolution imply atheism. Please can the Vatican open an evolution museum already. Then Ratzinger and Ham can argue in the Theology dept and we can keep the Science faculty out of it.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likemurraybiscuit That's the "groupishness" that comes naturally to the Right; they insist on conflating their enemy (the antichrist) with "liberal academia" of part thereof.
Ironically I suppose christendom's antichrist is these fundamentalists that're inside the gates. Not some infidels who're been "misled" about the true nature of the divine, humanity, etc.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeComments disabled on the Creation Museum's videos and the article on their website. Says a lot, really. Though Bill's comment about creationist engineers was a tad foolish and of course Ken pounced.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI find it interesting to see that Ken Ham says that by not teaching Creationism we will limit kids critical thinking skills. Face Palm. What troubles me most is how well spoken and rational he will appear to the credulous. There is no doubt that people will buy everything he said. Probably because they lack the critical thinking skills he was talking about earlier.
I can't watch the second video at this time. My brain hurts too much. Will come back and watch later.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likereasonbeingblog At least he's not overtly vowing to stop "critical thinking" as per the official Texas GOP 2012 platform.
The most profound miseducation here with Nye and Ham isn't about deep-time being at odds with genesis 1, it's about the "goodness of teaching" itself.
The argument Nye uses is that it's good to teach science. Ham says it's good to teach the bible.
The argument we ought to be having is: what is a publicly-funded school supposed to do when a parent complains that their child's academic teaching (history, evolution, cosmology) is in conflict with their family's religious teachings (biblical miracles).
The answer seems to be that a state's education system ought systematically teach its (future) voters the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And that parents --when not clocked in as a member of the public schooling service-- can freely teach kids any half-truths, moral fictions, fables that they want, within the usual limits of the law, hate-speech, etc.
There really is only conflict because if Genesis 1:1-3 is a genuine historical miracle, then something about evolution (climate science, any scientific fact or theory you care to mention) MIGHT be a red-herring. Although still the most credible info we have to go on here in the 21st century.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeCan't fault the rhetoric. It is convincing and powerful. Sad though that their are so many humans for whom rhetoric wins over facts and reason. For anyone with critical thinking skills or a basic grounding in the scientific method, I agree though, this is real "head explodes from hyper-pressure of cognitive dissonance" stuff!
I especially like the claim that it is Creationists who like to teach children "How to think, not what to think". Wow! I guess the Christians were right about Hypatia, Galileo and Bruno. Let's burn the works of Asimov and Sagan!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeDouble face palm.
RJ Evans
American Heathen®
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeOh jebus Marty. I think I just got stupider. And that's quite a feat.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeIt's been a really long time since I've seen something so stupid. I commend their work, they make themselves look ridiculous so we don't have to.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeCan someone please explain to me the cognitive dissonance involved in a person who has a PhD in science, yet sees a difference between "observational science" and "historical science"? Anybody? Please?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likemartinspribble No. To attempt such a thing would knock the world off its axis and propel us straight into the sun! God I think I lost IQ points watching those videos.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likemartinspribble I'll take a stab.
If history contains miracles, then observational science will be blind to them.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeWatched these the other day and I had the same response—massive brain pain.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like