Bill Nye: The Perfect Talking Head for a March Against Science

Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.

Bill Nye in 2011

By Stephen Meyer Published on April 16, 2017

Bill Nye may not be a scientist. But he used to play one on TV. Now he is an honorary co-chair and speaker for the “March for Science” in Washington D.C. and elsewhere on April 22.

The choice of Nye as one of the faces of the March is revealing. March organizers have paid lip service to critical thinking and “diverse perspectives” in science. However, Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.

He attacks those who disagree with him on climate change or evolution as science “deniers.” He wouldn’t even rule out criminal prosecution as a tool. Asked last year whether he supported efforts to jail climate skeptics as war criminals, he replied: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”

Scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.

Real science encourages debate. It doesn’t insist that scientists march in lockstep. Or that they speak with one voice. In fact, scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.

Models Vs. Evidence

Take global warming. Many marchers will wear their belief in climate change on their sleeves. On their signs, too. They, like Nye and others who claim to speak for science, equate belief in man-made climate disaster with science itself. If you disagree, you’re “anti-science.”

Yet there are strong reasons to doubt the so-called “consensus” on warming. But the popular media rarely cite them.

From 1890 to 1990, records show only a .45 degree C rise in global temperature as measured from near-surface thermometers around the Earth. Yet about 75 percent of the increase occurred before World War II, while most of the increase in human produced greenhouse gases occurred after World War II. So, human industrial activity doesn’t really correlate with the main effect of interest. Meanwhile, after a few warmer than usual years in the early 1990s, global temperatures have flat-lined. They show no net increase over the last two decades.

Many top scientists are skeptics of extreme global warming, including physicists, biologists, earth and atmospheric scientists.

Most warmists’ models have predicted steep rises. But these models don’t match the real global temperatures collected after the fact. So why believe the dire predictions that those same models make about future temperatures before the fact?

Bill Nye, Al Gore, and former President Obama have said we must accept what “the scientists” say. To listen to the skeptics would be to reject “settled science.” But skeptics of extreme warming include many top scientists: physicists, biologists, earth and atmospheric scientists like Richard Lindzen (MIT), Freeman Dyson and William Happer (Princeton), Roy Spencer (University of Alabama, formerly NASA), John Christy (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama), and Matt Ridley (DPhil, Oxford). How strong can the “consensus” be if such stars of science question the idea?

What About Neo-Darwinism?

But let’s say widespread agreement did exist on the question. Has such an agreement served as an error-free guide to truth in the past? The history of science says no.

Here’s another scientific issue to ponder. Nye claims the evidence for evolution is “Undeniable. That’s how he put it in the title of his recent book. By “evolution” he means textbook neo-Darwinism. So the case for evolution is “undeniable”? In truth, many leading scientists, including evolutionary biologists, reject neo-Darwinism. Many biologists now doubt the creative power of random mutation with natural selection. But that is the core idea of the theory.

This past November I attended a conference of the prestigious Royal Society of London. The meeting was called to address this problem. Speaking first, biologist Gerd Müller listed the “explanatory deficits” of neo-Darwinism. He said those include its failure to explain the “origin of biological complexity” and the origin of major morphological “novelties.” It also doesn’t predict their abrupt appearance in the fossil record.

Nye claims the evidence for evolution is “Undeniable. But many biologists now doubt the core of Darwin’s theory.

Other biologists echo his concerns. They argue that mutation and selection can account for “the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest.” That is, minor, but not major, changes in the history of life.

I say more on this in my book Darwin’s Doubt. For instance, neo-Darwinism fails to explain the origin of the new genetic information needed to build new forms of life.

Our own experience with computer code helps to explain why. Random changes to the digital characters in a section of functioning software code will degrade the information in a program and destroy its function. That will happen long before those changes can generate a new program or operating system. Yet, neo-Darwinists invoke just such random changes to the characters in the genetic text to explain where new genetic information comes from. Mathematicians who know biology say “not a chance.”

What Do You Mean By “Evolution”?

In any case, the textbook examples of natural selection and random mutations do not involve creating new genetic information. Many biology texts tell about the famous finches in the Galápagos Islands whose beaks have waxed and waned in shape and length over time. These books also recall how moths in England got darker and lighter as levels of industrial pollution changed. Darwinists present such cases as knockdown evidence for evolution. But that depends on what you mean by “evolution.”

Small-scale “micro-evolutionary” changes can’t explain large-scale “macro-evolution.”

That term has many meanings. “Evolution” can refer to anything from minor change within the limits of a gene pool to the creation of wholly new genetic information and structures.

Yet, as a host of biologists have argued in recent papers, small-scale “micro-evolutionary” changes can’t explain large-scale “macro-evolution.” Mostly, micro-evolution (such as changes in color or shape) just uses pre-existing genetic information. But the large changes needed to build new organs or whole body plans need entirely new sources of information. This explains the growing doubts about the power of natural selection and random mutation.

It also explains why many biologists are seeking new theories of evolution. As yet, though, nothing like a consensus is emerging.

March for Conformist Science

Don’t expect Nye or the others “marching for science” to breath a word about any of this. And that’s a shame. A real “March for Science” would celebrate scientific puzzles, disagreements, and competing ideas rather than fear them.

Those who truly want to support science should defend the right of all scientists — including dissenters — to express their views.

Just ask Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera. In his book The Discourses of Science, he writes that science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence. They can only do that, though, if they are free to challenge established ideas and advance new ones.

Those who truly want to support science should defend the right of all scientists — including dissenters — to express their views. Those who stigmatize dissent do not protect science from its enemies. Instead, they subvert the process of scientific discovery they claim to revere.

 

Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He has authored the New York Times best seller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013) as well as Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009), which was named a Book of the Year by the Times (of London) Literary Supplement in 2009.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Timothy Horton

    No surprises that professional Liar For Jesus Meyer is as slimy and dishonest in his misrepresentations of climate science as he is in his canards about evolutionary biology.

    For example, science has known for close to 70 years where new genetic information comes from in evolution. In every generation the process of imperfect replication produces new genetic sequences in individuals = new genetic information. The exact mechanisms which produce this new information (duplications, insertions and deletions, SNPs, frame shifts, etc.) are well documented. The new information which is retained in the gene pool and is that which is fixed by selection and neutral drift. This has been empirically demonstrated in the both lab and in the field yet Meyer continues to lie about the scientific explanation. Natural processes and the environment produce the new information. No magic POOFING required.

    Clowns like Meyer and his fellow ID-Creationists like Behe and Wells are free to present their evidence for publication in mainstream scientific journals any time they want. They never do because they know their hand-waving BS can’t withstand the slightest scientific scrutiny. That’s why they only self-publish their anti-science idiocy in the popular press and/or on ID-Creationist web pages.

    • Gary

      The God of the Bible created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. What you believe to be true is impossible. It could never happen, no matter how much time was involved.

      • J. Stil

        You’re wrong, Gary. These things did happen, that is why there are crocodiles, gingko trees and sharks in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years ago and these things still all exist today. You’re right that species are only able to reproduce with their own kind and mostly only reproduce their own kind, but you’re wrong to say that chance has no role.

        Certain species are more successful than others, that is why you have dinosaurs disappearing and very few redwoods left. As food availability and competition from other species threaten a particular species’ niche, that species either adapts, moves on, or dies out. That isn’t to say that one species changes completely to a different species in one generation, this is an assumption no one but creationists make. But one doesn’t have to flex their thinking muscle too hard to discern that all flowering plants or all reptiles come from one common ancestor. Otherwise, there would be no reason to group animals or plant species together into clades to begin with. Why use these words? Why not just refer to every species as completely unrelated to any other species with no groupings like orders, phyla or kingdoms. I think you know why not.

  • Gary

    In order for “molecules to man” evolution to work, it would have to be guided by an intelligent being, or beings who are supernatural. It could never be random (by chance). That fact would be impossible to accept for those who believe that only nature exists.

    • Timothy Horton

      It could never be random (by chance).

      Science doesn’t say evolution happened purely by random chance. Evolution is an iterative feedback process with a random component – new genetic variations- and a non-random component, selection. The non-random selection component causes successful new genetic variations to be retained and fixed in the population. The successful variations also tend to accumulate over time

      The process works so well there is even a branch of Computer Science which uses the method, called Evolutionary Algorithms, to solve complicated problems other humans produced methods can’t.

      • Gary

        There is no non-random component without design by a supernatural being.

        • Timothy Horton

          Empty nonsensical claim from a scientific illiterate. If the probability distribution of a natural occurring process is not uniform then statistically events with a higher probability will occur with more frequency than those with a lower probability. That’s exactly how evolution works.

          Mathematicians have understood that for over 500 years.

          • Gary

            Mathematics requires a designer the same way living things do.

          • Timothy Horton

            Yep. The same way is not at all.</b.

          • Gary

            You either believe things made themselves, or they happened by chance. Those are the only options you have. And both are impossible.

          • Timothy Horton

            You keep leaving out the third option, extant species evolved slowly over time through the iterative feedback process of evolution. That’s what all the evidence shows.

            Your ignorance of scientifically verified reality doesn’t change reality one iota.

          • Gary

            You don’t have that third option without some thinking being making it happen.

          • glenbo

            >>”You don’t have that third option without some
            thinking being making it happen.”<<

            Perhaps instead of debunking our natural evolutionary
            arguments, you can posit substantial evidence of your belief.

          • J. Stil

            God must have created cosmological blueshifts too, guess we’ll just have to wait another few billion years to see what they look like.

          • Shannon

            “Extant species evolved slowly over time through the iterative feed…” isn’t a viable third option. It doesn’t explain how the extant species came to exist in the first place. As Gary said, you either believe things made themselves, or they happened into existence by chance. The only third option is that some super-intelligent designer created them.

          • Timothy Horton

            Not only is it viable, it’s supported by million of pieces of consilient evidence from dozens of different scientific fields amassed over the last 150+ years. Extant species evolved from earlier species through the process of common descent. That is a scientific fact. The process has been ongoing for at least the last 3.8 billion years, ever since the first life appeared on the planet. That too is a scientific fact.

            The theory of evolution is an explanation of the mechanisms which produce the observed fact of evolution. Like I reminded Gary: Creationist ignorance of scientifically verified reality doesn’t change reality one iota.

          • glenbo

            >>”The only third option is that some
            super-intelligent designer created them.”<<

            We cannot rule out extraterrestrial/alien colonization.

        • glenbo

          >>”There is no non-random component”<<
          Why did God "design" cancer, malaria and children with two heads?

          • Gary

            Some people get sick. Some people are born with defects. That does not prove God does not exist, or that he is “mean”.

          • Timothy Horton

            According to IDiot Michael Behe, God intervened and helped the malaria parasite develop resistance to anti-malarial drugs. As a result millions of people still die from malaria each year.

            That sure sounds mean to me.

          • Gary

            Would you have preferred not to have been born? Someday soon, you will wish that.

          • Timothy Horton

            What does that have to do with your God helping malaria kill people?

          • Gary

            Everyone dies of something.

          • Timothy Horton

            That doesn’t explain why goes out of his way God to help malaria kill people prematurely.

          • Gary

            How do you know anyone dies “prematurely”?? Just because someone does not live an “average” lifespan does not mean there is something wrong. Many people live longer than average. Is there something wrong with that?

          • glenbo

            >>” Just because someone does not live an
            “average” lifespan does not mean there is something wrong.”<<

            OH MY GAWD!
            Tell that to the parents of children who died of cancer.
            Cue cuckoo clock sound byte now.

          • Gary

            That is sad. But you have no reason to say it is “wrong”, or “unfair” because you have no standard to judge whether anything is wrong or unfair.

          • glenbo

            >>”But you have no reason to say it is “wrong”,<<
            OH MY GAWD!
            You have NO moral compass if you feel a child's suffering is supposed to be "good" and "fair."
            Disgusting.
            Yikes.

          • Did you play hockey?

          • RbtRgs

            That god is a real dic/.

          • glenbo

            >>” That does not prove God does not exist, or that he is “mean”.”<<
            First of all, the burden of proof is on the one claiming God exists. That would be you, sir.
            Second, if God does exist, all the above proves that God is an inferior designer.

          • Gary

            The universe, and everything in it had to have been made by a being, or beings, that are outside of nature and existed before the universe. It had to be some being who had the ability and the desire to make what exists. I think I know who it was. Maybe you can figure it out for yourself.

            Calling God an inferior designer requires the assumption that all creatures are supposed to be perfect, and immortal. What is the reason for that assumption?

          • glenbo

            >>” everything in it had to have been made by a being”<>” Calling God an inferior designer requires the
            assumption that all creatures are supposed to be perfect, and immortal. What is the reason for that assumption?“<<

            Mathew 5:48 states God is perfect.
            His blunders speak otherwise.

          • Gary

            Those who want to know what happened can read the Bible.

          • glenbo

            >>”Those who want to know what happened can read the
            Bible.”<<

            The bible is not an accurate scientific document. It is far
            from ever being one.
            What makes you think I haven’t read the bible?
            I “know what happened.”
            I “know” God magically created the universe in a whopping 6
            days.
            I “know” that God murdered tens of thousands (perhaps more)
            of innocent children, infants and pregnant women with Noah’s flood. What did those children do? What did all the wildlife do to deserve this death sentence?

            I “know” that God condones slavery, rape and murder of
            Sabbath Day sinners and homosexuals. What did they do wrong?

            I “know” God ordered the slaughter of the Amalekites and allowed the rape of young women and girls who “have not known a man.”

            I “know” that there are earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes,
            malaria, cancer, and thousands of other diseases and debilitating genetic anomalies affecting everyone indiscriminately only because Adam ate fruit.

            Please don’t presume to tell me I don’t “know” what
            happened.
            Perhaps you need to read your bible before you presume to “know” how the world around you works.

          • Gary

            You have some problems with God. But God has some problems with you. Guess who’s going to win that.

          • glenbo

            >>”You have some problems with God.”<>” But God has some problems with you. Guess who’s
            going to win that.”<<

            Sorry, I don’t respond to threats from the non-existent.

            But let me ask you this:

            Why do you accept the horrible things God did to innocent
            people as being “good?”

          • Gary

            I don’t agree that God has done anything horrible. And, you don’t know that anyone was innocent. But, if you are right, and God does not exist, then he couldn’t have done anything “horrible”.

          • RbtRgs

            That last sentence is the first logical thing you have said.

          • glenbo

            >>”I don’t agree that God has done anything horrible.”<<
            Thank you for engaging me in conversation.
            It has been a pleasure.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Without there being a God, who can say they are horrid?

          • eddiestardust

            So if you think God doesn’t exist, why then do you bother coming to sites like this?

          • glenbo

            >>”why then do you bother coming to sites like this?”<<
            First and foremost, to exercise my 1st amendment right to free speech…which has been censored by "sites like this."
            Secondly, and more importantly, "sites like this" are harmful, as they rally weak minded people to favor destructive practices…like the destruction of the environment and LGBT rights.
            "Sites like this" demonize LGBT people for NO GOOD REASON, and I am here to speak up for a marginalized group needlessly targeted by an irrational entity for irrational reasons.

          • glenbo, you are trying to compare God to man. You have decided in your mind what YOU think is just and unjust. What makes you think that you are capable of thinking like God?

          • glenbo

            >>”glenbo, you are trying to compare God to man.”<<
            Wrong. I am merely questioning God's morality. Anyone who condones slavery, rape and the murder of children has no moral compass.

          • Dean Bruckner

            The LORD rebuke you!

          • J. Stil

            God “flooded” the whole Earth, and yet fresh water fish were still able to survive in freshwater lakes and ponds in the middle of continents afterward.

            Absolutely pitiful reasoning to substitute for evidence that CAN BE FOUND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

          • mbabbitt

            Obviously , you don’t understand the Fall. If you can, for the sake of argument, agree that there is the God of the Bible, then you have to follow the story along – instead of cheap potshots. You cannot despise someone you don’t believe exists.

          • Timothy Horton

            Obviously you don’t understand evolutionary biology or genetics.

          • glenbo

            >>”Obviously , you don’t understand the Fall.”<<
            So we have cancer, birth defects, over 10,000 diseases, earthquakes, tsunamis tornadoes, evil, suffering, war, ethnic cleansing, terrorism, viruses, and the daily deaths of 20,000 children due to malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care because…
            Adam ate fruit?
            OH! It all makes so much more sense now!

          • Gary

            You have no basis to object to anything. Your objections are nothing more than your subjective opinions.

          • Timothy Horton

            Your objections are based on your virtually complete scientific ignorance. Most Creationist squawking is.

          • glenbo

            >>”You have no basis to object to anything.”<<
            Now you know how LGBT people feel when they are oppressed by religious nutcases for no logical or rational reason.

          • RbtRgs

            That whole statement is nothing more than an assertion made without evidence.

          • Gary

            The evidence is that nothing is created by chance, and nobody has ever seen something make itself.

          • J. Stil

            Nothing in the universe can be created or destroyed, that’s part of the first few laws you learned about physics and cosmology in middle school.

          • Since the “consensus” across the world is that God DOES exist, the burden of proof is on you (the minority) to prove that He doesn’t exist. Your problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative. To definitively claim that God does not exist, you would have to know all things; which would make you a god.

          • glenbo

            >>”Since the “consensus” across the world is that God DOES exist, the burden of proof is on you (the minority) to prove that He doesn’t exist.”<<
            Nice try, but popularity of a concept isn't proof.
            The burden is on the one who makes the claim. NOT on the one who simply rejects it.
            Your logic is seriously flawed.
            I recommend you not pursue a career in law.

          • Dean Bruckner

            You should be on your knees begging God to have mercy for your sins.

    • RbtRgs

      Wrong.

      • Gary

        Prove it.

        • glenbo

          >>”Prove it”<<
          Prove your "creator" exists.

          • Gary

            The universe, and everything in it, are proof that God exists. If God didn’t exist, then nothing would exist because the existence of things cannot happen by chance, and things cannot create themselves.

          • glenbo

            >>”The universe, and everything in it, are proof that God exists.”<<
            Okay. I'm convinced.
            Thank you.

          • glenbo

            >>”nothing would exist because the existence of things cannot happen by chance”<<
            I agree…it takes magic. And magic is not chance.
            Thank you!

  • glenbo

    So many things are wrong with this article.

    First, science isn’t an “ideology.” If you replace the word “science”
    in this article with the word religion, it then makes sense. Science is a state
    of knowing. Religion is not. To label science as an ideology only when it
    contradicts your agenda is pure foolish folly.

    Please educate yourself on climate change. Watch this video.
    (copy this url and delete the space between the dot and nasa and the space
    between the dot and gov)

    http://climate. nasa. gov/climate_resources/144/

    As for genetic mutation, we are surrounded by millions of
    examples of it having gone bad. Anyone know anyone with cancer, or dwarfism, or
    two heads? No creator would “design” any of those. To claim Darwin posited
    changes occur due to “new genetic information” is as ridiculous as the belief
    that sin entered the world because Adam ate fruit. That’s NOT how life evolves.
    The genetic information was always there, it just mutated slightly over deep
    time…not six day of magical “creation.”

    An example of macro evolution is seen today in the form of
    dog breeds…and dogs didn’t need a Tower of Babel to magically and instantly become
    so diverse in such a short span of time starting with the wolf.

    Steven Meyers is relying on the ignorance of weak minded
    people to “prove” God exists not by God’s own non-existent so-called “merit,”
    but to demonize and suppress evidence to the contrary much like what the church
    did to Galileo… who by the way was correct all along.

    It is a dishonest, disingenuous an untrustworthy man who attempts
    to achieve not by his own merits but by relying only upon demonizing his rivals
    and competition and by doing nothing else.

    • Timothy Horton

      It is a dishonest, disingenuous an untrustworthy man who attempts to achieve not by his own merits but by relying only upon demonizing his rivals and competition and by doing nothing else.

      Since Bill Dembski decided to cut his losses and give up on ID Meyer has picked up the baton for Liar In Chief of the ID-Creationist movement. Meyer is always pimping his fantasy book Darwin’s Doubt which has been thoroughly shredded by real paleontologists for its beginner’s mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Meyer claims his magic “Intelligent Designer (i.e his Christian God)” came to Earth some 525 million years ago and over a span of 15-20 million years “designed” the body plans of animals first seen in the Cambrian era. Of course Meyer conveniently omits the facts there are three billion years’ worth of fossils BEFORE the Cambrian including at least 200 million years of multicellular ones. There are five major mass extinction events and subsequent re-radiations of new species in the 500 million years AFTER the Cambrian. But Meyer will never ever discuss that data despite being called on his inconsistencies hundreds of times.

    • Shannon

      “Anyone know anyone with cancer, or dwarfism, or
      two heads? No creator would “design” any of those. ”

      No creator did. Those came about by mutations, that is, mistakes and flaws that appeared in the originally perfect designs, AFTER the creation. To disparage intelligent design because cancer exists is like disparaging the idea that a car was intelligently designed, because time and abuse has caused some of it’s parts to rust and no longer function as originally intended. And new genetic information has to come into existence sometime – it is not biologically possible for genetic information to “always exist… mutat(ing) slightly over deep time”. There was certainly no such thing as DNA when the Big Bang originally happened, which means that at some point, (new) genetic information had to some how appear out of nothing.
      Dog breeds are not an example of macro evolution. The “new things” we see in modern dog breeds all actually have their roots in the same things that modern-day wolves have; they only appear to be new because they are so mutated and twisted by inbreeding, they look unrecognizable from their original form (and often are no good to the original function, too!)
      Galileo was oppressed by the church because Galileo was challenging what was considered settled science at the time. The church took the side of the scientists who adhered to the old theories, and who were challenged by Galileo’s new theories. The modern-day analogy for what happened to Galileo would be if the church joined evolutionists in harassing Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists.

      • Timothy Horton

        Those came about by mutations, that is, mistakes and flaws that appeared in the originally perfect designs, AFTER the creation.

        Mutations aren’t “mistakes and flaws”. They’re simply naturally occurring variations which appear due to the stochastic nature of the chemical processes involved in biological replication. Depending on the environment sometimes the variations perform better than the originals in allowing their possessor to survive long enough to reproduce themselves. Those beneficial changes tend to accumulate over time. Given enough time and enough changes to the environment they can and do produce new species.

        • RbtRgs

          You obviously know a lot more about science than these creationist fools fob

          • Timothy Horton

            A piece of moldy bread knowns more about evolutionary biology that most of these Creationist goobers.

      • glenbo

        >>” To disparage intelligent design because cancer
        exists is like disparaging the idea that a car was intelligently designed,
        because time and abuse has caused some of it’s parts to rust and no longer function as originally intended.”<>” There was certainly no such thing as DNA when the Big Bang originally happened, which means that at some point, (new) genetic
        information had to some how appear out of nothing.”<>” Galileo was challenging what was considered settled
        science at the time.”<>”Intelligent Design scientists.”<<
        OH MY GAWD!
        That, sir is an oxymoron.
        There is NO science in religion.

        • Dean Bruckner

          “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’
          They are corrupt, and have committed abominable deeds.
          There is no one who does good.”
          Psalm 14:1-2

          How does it feel to be under God’s microscope, you old sinner? I pray you will repent of your arrogance and wickedness while there is still time, and as most of the rest of us here have already done of ours.

          • glenbo

            >>””The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”<>”How does it feel to be under God’s microscope, you old sinner?”<<
            Cue cuckoo clock sound byte now.

    • Dean Bruckner

      Your statement is a total crock. Evolution has the same explanatory power for the diversity of life as leprechauns do for the collections of gold around the world. So called climate change research is full of fraud, groupthink, totalitarianism, question-begging and Marxism and other idolatries. Open your eyes! Your simple sophistry does not belong here; take it somewhere else!

  • Gary

    If evolution is true, it had to have been made to happen by a supernatural being. Things don’t make themselves, and nothing happens by chance. Most evolutionists deny that any supernatural being was involved, which leaves them with the choices of things making themselves, or happening by chance, both of which are impossible. That means they could NEVER happen. So, anyone who is going to argue that evolution is true must accept a supernatural being as its cause. That’s the only way their argument can have any credibility.

    • RbtRgs

      Wrong.

      • Gary

        Do you believe that everything made themselves, or that they happened by chance? Those are your only options, if you deny that things were made by a supernatural being.

        • RbtRgs

          We know that we are evolved primates, so we did not make ourselves and we did not come about by chance.

          • Gary

            You are a human being. And so were ALL of your ancestors. Monkeys never reproduce anything but monkeys. Apes never reproduce anything but apes. Your beliefs are wrong. As in untrue.

          • Timothy Horton

            And mammals always produce mammals, vertebrates always produce vertebrates.

            Gotta love Creationist willful ignorance. it’s sad but oh so entertaining. 🙂

          • Gary

            I know you believe that your ancestors were not human, but your beliefs have no basis in reality. There is no actual evidence to prove what you believe is true. You ASSUME it is true, and you BELIEVE it is true. What you call “science” is nothing more than philosophy, or religion.

          • Timothy Horton

            Why are there no humans in the fossil record older than 200K years when the fossil record goes back 3.8 billion years?

            Why are there no modern species like extant cats, dogs, horses, etc. in the fossil record when you go back more than a few million years?

          • J. Stil

            ID and creationism are merely unhealthy smatterings of Sunday-school dogma mixed with the ravenous militant toadyism Scientology. Unoriginal ideas that are thrust into conversations with the intent of providing a red herring. Can’t discuss truth if we’re too busy arguing about the number of protons in a Hydrogen atom.

            You notice most of these ardent ID and YEC’ers are of a certain age (baby boomers) and are overwhelmingly of one racial background. Mostly white males who are still fearful to venture outside of their own late 20th century middle-American evangelical upbringing.

            Denialism is cancer. Whether that’s denying evolutionary science, or global climate change, or the Holocaust or your own mortality. Read and consider new information, or perish along with flat-Earthers, Hollow Earthers, Birthers and every other assemblage of pseudoscientific nonsense.

          • historiavita

            Your comment about “mostly white males” is racist. Why introduce that ugliness into the conversation?

          • J. Stil

            People of all stripes and backgrounds come to the defense of Bible-based interpretations of cosmology and the origins of life. Fair enough.

            I am merely providing an observation that the most “reputable” and “credentialed” among the notable ID and creationist supporters seem to be of one age-group and racial makeup.

            I guess black, Asian, indigenous American and Pacific Islander Churches have better things to do? Or the Discovery Institute does not hire from those groups?

          • J. Stil

            You require evidence from others to back up their claims and refuse to respond or react to it even when it’s provided.

            Then you make wild claims yourself and refuse to provide any sort of quantifiable or demonstrable evidence to back it up, yet still persist in your beliefs.

            Boy, I thought religions are supposed to scare hypocrisy out of folks. Seems like they aren’t doing their job these days.

          • RbtRgs

            Evolution is a fact, dude. We are descendants of filthy monkey men ;-).

          • Gary

            You might be stupid enough to believe that crap, but I prefer reality.

          • RbtRgs

            Join reality, please.

          • RbtRgs

            The Bible is Bronze Age folklore.

          • historiavita

            Ah, the Near Eastern Bronze Age ended about 1200 B.C. Much of the Old Testament, and New Testament, when relating historical events, takes place after that period, on up to roughly the mid-first century A.D.

          • RbtRgs

            I really wish the fundamentalists agreed with you in that last bit.

          • eddiestardust

            So I guess you don’t believe in Flu viruses or why they change?

          • Gary

            Viruses never become anything other than viruses. They are limited by their biology.

          • eddiestardust

            Viruses change. That’s why you can get the flu …a different strain , each year.

          • Jim Walker

            please notify me when it turned into a butterfly.

          • historiavita

            Certainly do. The principle of adaption—happens everywhere in Nature, and is fascinating (even when deadly to us). However, he’s not referring to micro-evolutionary changes, to adaptation. He is talking about one species becoming another—utterly different proposition. A virus could mutate a billion times. Not only will it always be a virus, not a cucumber, it will always be its particular type of virus. Ebola will never be the common cold.

          • Timothy Horton

            Please provide your evidence for this magic barrier which makes it impossible for micro-evolutionary changes to accumulate over time into macro-evolutionary ones.

            Barring that, please explain why we have a fossil record going back over 3.8 billion years yet we never find the fossils of most extant creatures going back more than a few million years.

          • historiavita

            It’s clear we share an enormous amount of genetic similarities with the apes—no argument there at all. A problem is that, so far, our fossil record has not provided us with a clear link of transitional species between said apes to homo sapiens. Absent said complete fossil record, we have a theory, or, more accurately, a hypothesis, in search of its confirming evidence. Despite that, how many multitudes of people proclaim as gospel the fact that we are descended from apes, with no questions allowed? I have absolutely no problem with such a proposition, but I certainly wouldn’t believe it as proven fact, as an established scientific law (the final stage of the scientific method) without indisputable, dispositive proof. I should think anyone who considers such matters seriously would take a similar stance. I take no issue with a researcher believing in said hypothesis as a likely reality, then searching for the proof in the evidence—that’s how the method often works (but not always). Everyone and his brother off the street going about announcing the entire matter settled for the ages, with neither doubt, nor question, is quite another matter.

          • RbtRgs

            We have plenty of evidence that we are evolved primates. Enough to establish our simian ancestry beyond a reasonable doubt, as they say in the legal world. And evolution itself is definitely a fact. There’s nothing left in the old biblical creation story that matches the facts of our ancestry — the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that we are from stardust by way of pond scum. Isn’t that cool?

          • Timothy Horton

            A problem is that, so far, our fossil record has not provided us with a
            clear link of transitional species between said apes to homo sapiens.

            We don’t have enough fossil evidence to establish a direct lineage but we do have a dozen or more transitional species which existed in the last several million years. We also have the phylogenetic data created from all primate genomes which clearly show our inter-relatedness. There is much more than just a hypothesis and you’re being rather disingenuous to claim otherwise.

    • glenbo

      >>”If evolution is true, it had to have been made to happen by a supernatural being.”<<
      This is what is known as the "argument from ignorance."

      • Gary

        What is ignorant is your beliefs.

        • glenbo

          >>”Then you are faced with explaining”<<

          http://talkorigins. org/

          • Gary

            When you boil them down, all of the evolutionary ideas are either 1. things come to exist and change by chance, or 2. Things create and change themselves. Neither of those ideas is possible.

          • glenbo

            >>”Neither of those ideas is possible”<<
            So…Magic?
            Okay!

          • Timothy Horton

            Tsk tsk. Still missing the third option, the one supported by all the evidence.

            There’s no ignorance quite so glaring as Creationist willful ignorance.

          • J. Stil

            I’m wondering when all of this heated “things don’t just create themselves” talk will be turned against that convenient “creator” deity.

            The exception that proves the rule, I guess?

      • eddiestardust

        Why?

        • glenbo

          >>”Why?”<<
          I'm unclear what you are asking why about, but I will assume why Gary's response: "it must have been made by a supernatural being" would be considered the argument from ignorance.
          If someone cannot understand or explain how something happened or how things came to be and then reverts to a "supernatural creator" as the reason, that is the argument from ignorance.
          In other words, I don't know how X happened, so therefore God exists.
          Did that help?

          • eddiestardust

            You don’t believe in God, why just you don’t say it?

          • glenbo

            >>”You don’t believe in God, why just you don’t say it?”<<
            I don't believe in God.
            I have no reason to do so, and neither do you.

    • eddiestardust

      St John Paul II and Pope Francis believe in Evolution….

      • Gary

        Another of their many errors.

        • eddiestardust

          God believes in Evolution, that’s the way he creates….

          • Gary

            The Bible disagrees with you.

          • J. Stil

            What does the Bible say about the DNA of humans being 96%+ identical to large primates and 60% identical to fruit flies? What about the fact that humans share about 50% of their genes with bananas?

            The discovery and subsequent revelations of DNA alone disprove far more about creationism than creationism has ever been able to disprove about evolution.

            Stop telling people to look at “evidence” for themselves if you haven’t yet peered into a genomics or evolutionary biology book yourself.

  • RbtRgs

    The author is very confused about what science is. Evolution is true because that is where the evidence points. The evidence does not point to our being created in our present form less than 10,000 years ago. In fact, it proves that the latter is definitely wrong.

    • Timothy Horton

      The author is very confused about what science is. Evolution is true because that is where the evidence points.

      Meyer isn’t confused. He’s a Creationist professional liar just like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind before him. Meyer is one of the heads of the Discovery Institute, a RW Christian think tank based in Seattle and dedicated to overthrowing “materialism” and getting Biblical Creation reintroduced into public schools. All they produce is anti-science propaganda like Meyer’s laughably bad books.

      All their whining about how science treats them so unfairly is pure BS. They could submit their science to any reputable science journal any time they want, but that have nothing to submit. Instead they whine and cry because science won’t institute an Affirmative Action program for their Creationist stupidity.

      • mbabbitt

        Totally false charges, Tim. I am not writing to you but, rather, I am writing this for others to encourage others to investigate on their own and not listen to what people like you say about them. Slander is easy on the internet. Think for yourself people.

        • Timothy Horton

          Totally true mbabbitt. I’ve already provided two examples of Meyer’s lying nonsense about evolution below: his “evolution can’t produce new information” and his Darwin’s Doubt Cambrian foolishness.

          I’d be happy to discuss in detail your rebuttal to either with the proper references to the primary scientific literature of course. But you don’t have any rebuttals, do you?

          • Aaron Brown

            Could I hear your rebuttal to Meyer’s two points on evolution?

          • Timothy Horton

            Read the thread.

          • historiavita

            *You* haven’t offered any references to the “primary scientific literature” that I have yet seen. Why don’t you do so first? Stick 15-30 significant journal refs in a post. I will certainly read them, and I imagine others will as well. (I am not, by the way, one of the “Fundies” you talk about, before we start slapping labels on more people.)

          • Timothy Horton

            The Stream doesn’t allow links to papers and most times I’ve posted titles and authors so people could read for themselves my posts have been deleted. I’ve learned my lesson. This place is run by religious conservatives who closely guard their flock from the psychologically harmful introduction of actual science.

    • Gary

      I disagree.

      • Timothy Horton

        Evolution doesn’t happen just by chance. How many times are you going to repeat the same stupid Creationist misunderstanding?

        • Gary

          If it doesn’t happen by chance, then SOMEONE has to be making it happen. Plants and animals cannot naturally change themselves.

          • Timothy Horton

            If animals can’t “change by themselves” then why doesn’t every animal look identical to its parents?

            This science stuff goes so far over your head it leaves contrails.

          • Gary

            You probably don’t look identical to your parents. How did you manage that? Did you do that intentionally? Did your parents make that happen?

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! I look different from my parents because my DNA is a result of the sexual recombination of their genomes, plus about 100 or so genetic mutations not present in either of them. That’s one of the mechanism through which evolution produces new variations which can then be acted on by non-random natural selection.

            You never even took high school science, right?

          • Gary

            I assume both of your parents are human, and that you are human. Are you aware that every time a male human and a female human mate, the offspring is ALWAYS human? Humans reproduce humans and NEVER anything but humans. In order for evolution to be true, eventually something that is not human would have to be the result of two humans mating. But, there is no evidence that any such thing has ever happened.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! What a goober. 😀 The fossil record of life on the planet extends back over 3.8 billion years, with million of species represented. All that data yet anatomically modern humans (AMH) only start showing up in fossil record around 200 thousand years ago.

            Your explanation is…?

          • Gary

            I don’t agree with your assumptions because I think they are wrong. Your conclusions are wrong because your assumptions are wrong.

          • Timothy Horton

            Your science-free ignorance based opinions and $4.75 will get you a venti mocha at Starbucks.

          • Gary

            Your opinions are not based on science. They aren’t logical, rational, or reasonable. You believe that living things can reproduce living things that are so different from themselves that they cannot be said to be the same kind of thing. But there is no evidence that such a thing is even possible, let alone that it has ever actually happened. Ants never reproduce anything but ants. It does not matter how much time they have to try. And the same is true for every other kind of creature.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! More ignorance based babbling. Go take a course in Biology 101 before you make yourself look even more clueless.

          • Gary

            It is obvious that I know more about biology than you do. Living things only reproduce what they are, never anything else. That is basic biology. And you deny it.

          • Timothy Horton

            Still waiting for your explanation of why we only start seeing anatomically modern humans around 200K years ago despite a 3.8 billion year fossil record.

          • eddiestardust

            Bacteria and Viruses mutate over time. That’s why it’s so hard to cure the Common Cold or Bacterial based colds!

          • Rob Klaers

            //If it doesn’t happen by chance, then SOMEONE has to be making it happen//

            Why does it have to be someone? Why not something? Like say environmental factors.

        • theUSAparty

          Timothy Horton. How can you tell when one of you liberals are losing an argument? You start calling your opponent names likes: racists, misogynists, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and now your favorite term, creationist. Your logic is so flawed by your false sense of superiority.

          • Timothy Horton

            Feel free to defend Gary’s YEC stupidity that the world is only 6000 years old and all extant life came from pairs of “kinds” saved on a big wooden boat in a global Flood only 4500 years ago.

            Ball’s in your court Bunky. 😉

          • Jim Walker

            You know that time gets slower when you move away from earth aka time dilation.
            So use your math and try to find out how long 1 minute is at 100billion light years away and the 6 God days used to create the Universe will bring more clarity.

          • Timothy Horton

            You know that time gets slower when you move away from earth aka time dilation.

            LOL! That one’s a keeper for “Fundies say The Darnest Things”

            Psst – relativistic time dilation occurs as an object approaches the velocity of light, not the distance.

      • glenbo

        >>”There is no evidence”<<
        To you have "evidence" of anything else?

      • eddiestardust

        I’m a practicing Roman Catholic. I believe that Evolution is the term we use to define how God creates and God does NOT lie either:)

        • Gary

          I believe the Bible. And according to the Bible, God created everything in six days. Not enough time for evolution to happen. The Bible cannot be reconciled with evolution.

          • eddiestardust

            So do I 🙂 Could God have done it that way…probably…but look around…he created the entire universe and created it in such a way as to be understandable to us.

          • Gary

            No, you don’t believe the Bible. If you did, you wouldn’t be an evolutionist. Or a Catholic.

          • J. Stil

            Christ entrusted Peter with the keys to the kingdom and said in Matthew 16:18 that the Church would be built on this rock of faith.

            I am not sure where the “Bible based” and “non-denominational” sects are getting their self-certainty, but Jesus was directly quoted as saying these things. Jesus didn’t comment on homosexuality, or evolution, or abortion, but he did say that Peter would be the preeminent Apostle.

            That and the fact that there is no salvation outside the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Sorry guys, but you can’t just discard the sacraments and say you’re the “old time religion”. That’s hooey.

          • J. Stil

            Christ entrusted Peter with the keys to the kingdom and said in Matthew 16:18 that the Church would be built on this rock of faith.

            I am not sure where the “Bible based” and “non-denominational” sects are getting their self-certainty, but Jesus was directly quoted as saying these things. Jesus didn’t comment on homosexuality, or evolution, or abortion, but he did say that Peter would be the preeminent Apostle.

            That and the fact that there is no salvation outside the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Sorry guys, but you can’t just discard 5 sacraments and say you’re the “old time religion”. That’s hooey.

      • Rob Klaers

        Gary.. evolution isn’t about things making themselves. You’re confusing it with abioegenesis. Which is not the same. Not to mention no creature has been shown to be able to change their own DNA or that existing creatures make new kinds..

        Your perception of evolution is off. It’s basically small changes. And those changes accumulate. Kinda like sand in an hour glass. It starts as a few grains of sand (whose placement is not determined beforehand) hitting the bottom. It doesn’t look like much. Grains keep getting added until you have a pile of sand. Each grain is a small part of the total pile. Kind of like how life started at single cells, then mutations happens and those mutations accumulated over time. eventually forming the life as we know it today.

  • eddiestardust

    I’m Roman Catholic NOT a fundamentalist Christian! Fundamentalists are ALWAYS Wrong!

    • Gary

      I’m a Fundamentalist Christian, not a Catholic. If Catholicism was Biblical, I would be a Catholic.

      • eddiestardust

        St Peter and the FIRST Apostles were NOT “Fundamentalist Christians” 🙂

        • Gary

          You are wrong, again. I’ll bet that happens a lot.

  • eddiestardust

    Global Warming is just The Greenhouse Effect on Steroids. If you want to see this just look at Venus…Twin of Earth, all her oceans boiled away…she has Atmosphere that is 90 x as dense as our own and surface temps are near 900 degrees F hot enough to melt lead. She is NOT the closest planet to the Sun, Mercury is and she is HOTTER than Mercury.

  • theUSAparty

    FIRST COMMENT – CLIMATE CHANGE: 360 million years ago during the Devonian Epoch (before the FIRST TREE!!!!; before the first chunk of coal which was produced by trees!!!) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 2,200 ppm, which is about 7 times more than today. The atmospheric temperature was 11 deg F more than today and the temperature of Antarctica was nearly the same as the equator. So how the hell would burning any fossil fuels cause an increase in world temperatures? Even if you go further back in time to the Cambrian Epoch, the mean surface temperature is 12 deg F more than today and the atmosphere has 4,500 ppm of CO2. Please try to understand that we have been experiencing an ice age for the last 3 million years since the Isthmus of Panama was formed and the lowest amount of CO2 density in the atmosphere occurred. The fact that the earth’s temperature and CO2 density is rising is earth returning to it’s normal (normal for 541 million of the last 538 million years) conditions.

    • Timothy Horton

      Two big problems with your analysis

      1. We have ample scientific evidence the recent (last 100 years) warming is due almost entirely to human caused effects. Just because natural lightning caused forest fires in the past doesn’t negate the evidence for arson in this fire.

      2. The world in the Devonian didn’t have a human population of 7.5 billion people heavily dependent on a very stable environment for their food production and distribution. Human caused climate change probably won’t drive our species to extinction but it does have the potential to cause mass misery in the form of starvation and large loss of life.

      • theUSAparty

        I just looked at the record setting days for Lexington, KY for the month of April; look up your local city if you care. The average year for the record high temperature was 1953, which means there were just as many days with record high before 1953 as there were after 1953. IF CO2 had anything to do with GLOBAL WARMING, all of the record high temperatures should have been in the last 2 decades, NOT in 1896. Out of the 31 days of April, only 5 days were 21st century records; only 8 were within the last 50 years!!!!

        • Timothy Horton

          Cherry picking individual cities or geographic sites doesn’t change the fact the overall global average temperature has been steadily and rapidly rising. Only an incompetent boob would point at short term local fluctuations and claim it somehow negates the overall long term trend.

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton, insults WILL NOT be tolerated. Goodbye!

          • Timothy Horton

            Creationist stupidity and lies will not be tolerated. Goodbye yourself!

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton. How can you tell when one of you liberals are losing an argument? You start calling your opponent names likes: racists, misogynists, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and now your favorite term, creationist. Your reasoning if faulty, the numbers are not cherry pick, I just picked the city near me. Pick your own city and publish the results.

          • Timothy Horton

            Cherry picking individual cities or geographic sites doesn’t change the fact the overall global average temperature
            has been steadily and rapidly rising. Only an incompetent boob would
            point at short term local fluctuations and claim it somehow negates the
            overall long term global trend.

            You’re just not very bright, are you?

          • theUSAparty

            You have shown that you don’t have any credentials to make any judgement on the Earth’s Climate. It is laughable that you can not articulate your point of view so you have resulted to name calling. Having a conversation with you is like fighting with a pig in the mud, you both get dirty and after a while the realize the pig is enjoying it.

          • Timothy Horton

            Scientifically illiterate: “how can there be global warming when the temperature gets cooler every night???

            Thanks for confirming you just aren’t very bright.

          • theUSAparty

            If you have evidence (I hope you are smart enough to know what evidence is), that supports your statements, please present them. Your mere statements don’t carry much weight beyond your ears.

    • eddiestardust

      Please explain to me why Venus, which is the second closest planet to our Sun is HOTTER than Mercury which is the closest planet to the Sun?

      • theUSAparty

        It has everything to do with how MUCH atmosphere and not just the CO2. The CO2 may add some, but I would say it is unknown and tiny in comparison to the amount of atmosphere. Mars has 99% CO2 and it is very cold on Mars. At 49.5 km altitude on Venus, the pressure is 1 bar (the same as sea level on Earth), but the temperature is only ~110 deg F. At 52.5 km altitude, the temperature is 98 deg F while the pressure is 0.65 bar. If distance from the Sun made a difference, why would the center of Saturn (which doesn’t have a rocky core) be 21,000 deg F? So Mercury doesn’t have an atmosphere, like our moon, and is very hot in the day light, but very cold in the shade. It is actually possible to place a manned laboratory at the pole on Mercury.

        • Rob Klaers

          Mars also has very little atmosphere compared to Venus.

          //If distance from the Sun made a difference, why would the center of Saturn (which doesn’t have a rocky core) be 21,000 deg F?//

          That would be due to gravitational compression at the core.Not to mention, though it’s a gas giant it does in fact have a rocky core.

          • theUSAparty

            His question was, why is Venus hotter than Mercury but yet further from the sun. My answer was, the amount of atmosphere; if you have a little, it holds in a little heat; if you have a lot, you may get gravitational compression at the core. BTW: You are correct, they now say Saturn has a rocky core.

    • John Hart

      Hysteria about CO2 is rooted in politics, not science. It started as a theory to be pursued, found to be deficient and was abandoned, but politicians, looking for an issue to rally useful idiots, picked up the banner, and the elite pulling their strings, began pouring money into any coffer supporting people who’d go along with it.
      It’s not just bad science, it’s anti-science. Climate science is in the comparative class, it’s strength comes from skeptics. Denying them undermines everything science is supposed to be. What makes it even worse, if CO2 was a problem, what they propose, and what they’re doing, makes it worse while locking the third world in poverty. CO2 is a weak “green house gas” if the phrase has any real meaning, and it’s beneficial to plants. It makes them grow faster, increasing our ability to grow food. There are so many flaws in the theory, it would take books to document them all, but the “Mikes nature trick” comment in the computer code, should have been enough to convince any thinking man to take a look.
      State of Fear, makes one motive clear, there are many others. The one thing they all have in common is, sociopaths seeking power.

  • theUSAparty

    SECOND COMMENT – EVOLUTION: There is no evidence that life can be created from non-life. The Miller-Urey experiment is bad science; the earth’s climate 4.6 billion years ago was nothing like the conditions needed for Miller-Urey experiment to occur PLUS its complete bonkers to think that just because you can produce organic compounds, you can create life. A chicken egg is as close to life without being life, try to create life (life that will meet all 5 conditions) with a chicken egg by adding some DNA (not from a rooster!).

    • Timothy Horton

      There is no evidence that life can be created from non-life.

      Actually there is considerable scientific evidence for abiogenesis although the specific pathways have not been determined yet. Science is trying to understand and recreate events that happened over 4 billion years ago. That’s an incredibly difficult task as one can imagine.

      Abiogenesis also has nothing to do with the huge amount of positive evidence for evolution. Evolution is what happens after you have the first imperfect self-replicators competing for resources. How the original self-replicators got here is not germane to the naturally occurring processes of evolution which happen after.

      • theUSAparty

        IF THERE ARE ANY SCIENTIST WHO WANT TO STAKE THEIR REPUTATION AND STATE ABIOGENESIS IS POSSIBLE AND WILL APPEAR ON A VERY POPULAR PODCAST; CONTACT US!

        • Timothy Horton

          Why would any reputable scientist want to waste time with a bunch of scientifically illiterate Creationists?

          • theUSAparty

            You don’t even know what Podcast we are talking about and you are throwing stones; that was the subject matter of the article in which you are commenting!!!! BTW: We have had several atheists who have been on our show many times and love to come back. We have had numerous scientists on the show; you are just afraid that you don’t have the credentials to make it on our show. BTW: Bill Nye wouldn’t make it based upon his credentials, but we would want him to come on just to prove how big of a dweeb he is.

          • Timothy Horton

            Like I said, why would any reputable scientist want to waste time with a bunch of scientifically illiterate Creationists?

            I bet you have no clue about any OOL research going on. I bet you’ve never even heard of scientists like Dr. Jack Szostak or the work done at the Scripps Research Institute. But you guys do butthurt righteous indignation like nobody’s business.

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton, you are showing very poor scientific judgement by making all sorts of assumptions about who we are. No scientist would ever insult another without first finding out who they are. If you know Dr. Szostak or any of the researchers at SRI, we would love to have them on our show. If you are throwing out names, then you are truly revealing who you are.

          • Timothy Horton

            Timothy Horton, you are showing very poor scientific judgement by making all sorts of assumptions about who we are

            I’m just going by the scientific ignorance and ineptitude you’ve shown in your posts so far. I suppose it’s possible you’re a scientifically knowledgeable person just playing a clueless Creationist on the web but it seems unlikely. And who’s “we”? You have a mouse in your pocket?

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton, from your comments, it appears that you have missed you dose of Lithium. You sound very angry and make many unfounded accusations. Unless you have credentials to present, you are showing all of the sign of The Dunning–Kruger effect. Good bye!

          • Timothy Horton

            Another Creationist called on his scientific ignorance, runs for the door.

            In equally shocking news: water is wet, sun rises in the east. 😀

          • theUSAparty

            TIMOTHY HORTON. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. I asked for your credentials. Show them now or has DK effected you? Do you know Dr. Szostak and SRI or are you just running your mouth; again DK effect? What are your scientific credentials?

          • Timothy Horton

            BS in Biology, MS in Environmental Science, 30+ years in both field and lab work. How about you?

          • theUSAparty

            BS in Physics, MS in Engineering Physics. 30+ in aerospace (rocket design) and lab work, and numerous patents in everything but rockets. My co-host on the show has delivered 5,000 babies and a professor at a major university in medicine. Do you want the credentials of our staff as well or is that enough???

          • Timothy Horton

            OK, so zero training or understanding of anything even remotely connected with the evolutionary sciences.
            You’re the one hung up about screaming for credentials, not me. It wouldn’t matter if you had a dozen PhDs or just a high school GSD. It’s the knowledge you can demonstrate which counts and so far you’re batting a big fat zero.

          • theUSAparty

            Maybe you should re-read the article, its about Bill Nye. Bill Nye has a BSME degree and spouts off about evolutionary sciences. My Co-Host TEACHES medicine at the university, that tops an environmental science major any day.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Still squawking about credentials, still unable to demonstrate the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject. Typical Creationist.

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton, you are making false accusations, angry replies, and have resorted to name calling. Your credentials don’t carry as much weight as you think so you have a clear case of Dunning-Kurger effect. Go take you lithium.

          • Timothy Horton

            Same moronic Creationist response. Same pitiful scientific understanding. Same focus on credentials while completely ignoring the scientific evidence being discussed.

            That’s exactly why real scientists don’t waste time dealing with Creationist A-holes.

          • theUSAparty

            Demonstrate life from chemicals if you can! And that is the last insult from you. I don’t care what you say, I will not respond.

          • Timothy Horton

            Life is made of chemicals.

            The door’s over there since you have nothing intelligent to say.

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton. How can you tell when one of you liberals are losing an argument? You start calling your opponent names likes: racists, misogynists, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and now your favorite term, creationist. You have no credentials, but hide behind the internet. Such a coward!!!

          • Timothy Horton

            You said you weren’t going to respond. We’ll add liar to your already demonstrated less than impressive knowledge and honesty baseline.

          • Timothy Horton

            The article isn’t about Bill Nye. It’s about Liar-For-Jesus Stephen Meyer bellyaching because real scientists won’t let his lame brained Creationist religious fantasies into the scientific community without evidence.

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton. You are really demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don’t see anything in your credentials that make you an expert on OOL or the climate. From your answers, it definitely looks like you went to a liberal arts school.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! You Creationist Bozos are all alike. Go look up the Argument From Authority fallacy.

          • historiavita

            You’re not relying on your B.S. in Bio as any sort of proof for serious training in genetics, evolutionary biology, paleobiology, zoology, and the like, are you? A bachelor’s degree in any research field means about nothing. So, in what area(s) of environmental science have you worked? I asked a number of other questions about your credentials, and work, elsewhere. I am curious, because, amidst the name-calling and snark, you are presenting yourself as quite knowledgeable in some of these topics. So, is said knowledge from advanced research training, as well as professional experience, and if so, what? Or, are we talking about study done privately, for personal education? Nothing in the least wrong with the latter, but said study wouldn’t qualify one to speak with authority in the manner you are using in this forum.

      • John Hart

        You speak of “Science” as if it were a deity, not a method people use to find truth. Of course life can be created from non life. Cells do it all the time. Every second processes in your body produce five hundred trillion hemoglobin molecules. The molecules aren’t alive, but they and trillions of others, in a highly organized system, are what makes you alive.
        The huge amount of positive evidence for evolution, is a misnomer. Darwinian Evolution is a very simple concept, that reams of facts can’t prove, but it can be falsified, and has. The theory doesn’t explain the origin of information, it explains it away. Animations of processes necessary for cells to function, reveal they are filled with complex machinery, assembled according to even more complex plans, interpreted by computation systems more complex than anything man has designed.
        Saying, evolution did it explains nothing, and the only way to understand them is in terms of design. Evolutionist are the Flat Earthers of our time, holding science back, spreading disinformation they superstitiously believe, without a clue how foolish they look.

    • Rob Klaers

      //There is no evidence that life can be created from non-life. //

      That’s not evolution. That’s abiogenesis. Two different things. Evolution is what happens after life starts, it doesn’t start life.

      //The Miller-Urey experiment is bad science; the earth’s climate 4.6 billion years ago was nothing like the conditions needed for Miller-Urey experiment//

      You can show this, how..?

      // A chicken egg is as close to life without being life, try to create life (life that will meet all 5 conditions) with a chicken egg by adding some DNA (not from a rooster!)//

      And not a valid comparison.. Sorry. The egg shell, though inanimate is still made from a living creature/

      • theUSAparty

        Abiogenesis is presented in schools as part of Evolution. If schools would only present natural selection there wouldn’t be as much controversy.

        Miller-Urey depiction of early earth: Take the conditions on earth today and try to go back in time; MU conditions show no oxygen or carbon, but rather NH3, CH4, and H2. There is NO WAY of obtaining anything, but a very dense CO2 atmosphere of over ~90 bar with very hot humid green ocean during early earth; the trace amount of nitrogen in the early earth now dominates the atmosphere because it didn’t bind with anything in the early earth.

        The chicken egg is a good representation; its like you have a lap top computer with half the code missing, all you need to to randomly input code until the computer works. According to Darwin’s Warm Little Pond, right? With the chicken egg, you have 99.999999% of all the conditions and components needed to create life except for the correct DNA; if you can’t create life from a chicken egg, it can’t be created by some random act. BTW: if you don’t like the egg shell, replace it with rock or some other natural object.

      • John Hart

        Evolutionists are still playing the shell game. Whenever their false claims are about to be exposed, the scope of “evolution” narrows, until all that remains is an adaptive system, with no creative power at all. Abiogenesis doesn’t lessen the need for a designer, it multiplies it so many orders of magnitude, the problem may very well be Uncomputable. Imagine designing a computer with a self manifesting operating system, not just a boot loader, but a full blown system compressed into the logic. Doing so would break every law the information age depends on. We barely understand how a Quantum Mechanical process can “make” atoms. Thinking is possible to tweak it’s constants so it would spontaneously assemble a living creature is absurd to the nth degree.

  • theUSAparty

    THIRD COMMENT – SCIENTIST KNOWLEDGE: Within our lifetime, scientist KNEW that the shape of the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa was JUST COINCIDENCE, even when kindergartners would ask why. Later, scientists didn’t admit they were wrong, they just gave us plate tectonics. In the 70’s, scientist KNEW we were facing a global ice age (even published articles in Popular Science). Today, scientists say it is criminal to think the earth isn’t facing global warming caused by man. In the 80’s, scientists (and Green Peace) KNEW we must get rid of nuclear energy. Today, nuclear power plants are back in style for the sake of Global Warming. With a track record like this, isn’t it a small wonder that there aren’t more skeptics out there?

    • Timothy Horton

      Your scientific “knowledge” sounds like you were home schooled. It certainly doesn’t reflect the actual scientific thinking at the time on the topics you describe.

      • theUSAparty

        Your accusations diminish your argument. If you can’t debate someone without insults, I will ignore all future comments by you. There was no such thing as home school during the periods mentioned above, except for the fringe.

        • Timothy Horton

          You made a lot of ridiculous claims unsupported by any evidence. They are oft repeated Creationist nonsense not including the stuff you made up yourself. GIGO.

          • theUSAparty

            Timothy Horton. How can you tell when one of you liberals are losing an argument? You start calling your opponent names likes: racists, misogynists, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and now your favorite term, creationist.

          • Timothy Horton

            I can tell when a religious nutjob is desperately scientifically ignorant. It’s whenever he starts posting on scientific topics.

          • historiavita

            Are you implying that all people who are devoutly religious are “desperately scientifically ignorant,” or only some? Is it possible to be in said state of seeming desperation in regards to science, and also not be religious in the least?

          • Timothy Horton

            Not all religious people are scientifically ignorant but virtually all the demonstrably scientifically ignorant people posting here have turned out to be highly religious. That’s not an insult, merely an empirical observation.

      • John Hart

        Responding to closed minded people is a waste of time. Closed minded people never address issues, they make personal attacks. I skimmed your posts, they’re filled with ad hominem non-science. The Darwinian Evolution you superstitiously support, was falsified years ago, and none of the replacement theories are any better. When Evolution is defined in terms of information science, it’s limitations are obvious, that’s why true scientists are looking for an alternate explanation.
        Evolutionary systems can solve problems no other method can, but they must be designed in order to do so. Darwin’s theory made sense at the time because the complexity of life wasn’t known. Now that science is beginning to unravel the mystery, the need for a designer is obvious to anyone who understands what’s been found. Mindless evolution is no more creative than a thermostat, it can adapt creatures to fit an environment, but hasn’t the power to make anything.
        Attacking people who hold views that contradict yours, doesn’t make the case for evolution, it undermines it. To do something more than make noise, point out flaws in ID theory, not it’s proponents.

        • Timothy Horton

          Referring to someone like you as a scientifically illiterate goober isn’t an ad hom when you empirically demonstrate you indeed are a scientifically illiterate goober.

          You get the same offer as all the other Creationist mouth breathers. If you have any evidence which disproves evolutionary theory write it up, submit it to the appropriate scientific journals and have it published, go pick up your Nobel Prize. Or stay a scientifically illiterate goober impotently whining on a RW religious anti-science website.

          • Rebecca Albrecht Brewer

            Read Darwin’s Doubt by Dr. Stephen Meyer.

          • Timothy Horton

            I have. It’s a huge steaming pile of misrepresentations and outright lies.

            Why don’t you try explaining why Meyer won’t touch the 3.5 billions years of fossil evidence of evolution before the Cambrian (including at least 200 million years of multicellular life) and the 500 million years of fossil evidence for evolution after it? Please include your explanation for the 5 major mass extinction events in the last 500 million years and subsequent re-radiations of different species.

          • Ukulelemike

            The laws of thermodynamics disprove evolution. The total lack of the necessary billions of transitionary species is proof against evolution. The fact that science has never once proven any ability to produce an example of an animal having different offspring is proof against evolution. The finding of modern human items embedded in multi-million year old coal and rocks is proof against an old earth. The Miller Urey failure is proof against evolution. The fact that information in DNA must have an intelligent source is proof against evolution. The Bombadier Beetle is proof against evolution. I can go on.

          • Jim

            Nicely done. But these items do not disprove evolution, they are mostly issues that need to be dealt with. For the most part they are essentially anomalies, interesting anomalies they beg investigation, but not proof.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! I’m sure you can mindlessly regurgitate all the incredibly stupid Creationist PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) claims you got from reading AIG and ICR. That doesn’t make them true though.

            I’ve heard all the other dumb creationist claims but where did you get the modern humans found in multi-million year old coal and rock? Did you make than one up yourself?

          • John Hart

            Thank you for proving my point!

          • historiavita

            What are you doing, except whining about said goobers here? What’s your scientific background? Your advanced degrees in the field, since a B.S. doesn’t count for crap in serious research work. With whom did you study? In what journals are you published? Are you first author? How often has your work been cited? How many research grants have you been awarded? How did they perform? Have you been awarded tenure at your academic institution, if that’s where you work? What about a full professorship? Awards in your field? Significant talks and presentations? Do you have a research group? How big? How many grad students? Postdocs? Where did you go to grad school? M.S., or Ph.D., or M.D.? Where did you postdoc? In whose labs have you worked? Are you relied on in your field to evaluate the work of your peers? How many grad students have you mentored to their Ph.D.s?

            I ask these questions seriously, not as a mocking exercise. I worked in one of the top theoretical chemistry research groups in the world, based at the University of Chicago. We managed about $15 million in federal grant monies, an enormous amount for theor chem. Our group had about 30 people, which is huge for the field as well. We were (and still are) widely published, including in PNAS, JACS and Structure, the last of which, as one example, is part of an élite group of journals ranking not far below Science and Nature in prestige. We recruited people from the best schools, brought them to our group at one of the world’s top universities, and sent them on for postdoc and faculty positions at the best schools. Our primary investigator could win a Nobel before his career is over, and already consults with the Committee for Chem.

            All this is to say, I know something of science, I believe in the scientific method, and I think the pursuit of scientific truth is grueling, life-consuming, and wonderful. I also would never relate to others as you do, with pomposity and denigration. You seem completely uninterested in making genuine converts to your position, preferring to insult, demean, and deride, yet you have neither demonstrated expertise, nor credentials. So, can you offer both?

          • Timothy Horton

            Feel free to provide scientific evidence to support the rather ridiculous claims made by theUSAparty. He sure couldn’t. Or continue to just flap your gums and brag about what a learned scientists you are.

        • nopetrol

          Is he wrong about your education, though?

          • John Hart

            Have you stopped beating your wife?

          • Timothy Horton

            Yep, home schooled all the way. 😉

      • historiavita

        No need to make an ignorant, bigoted comment about home-schooling, which is hardly a monolithic movement, for one, and is also hardly guilty (overall) of producing poorly-educated students. Doing so doesn’t strengthen your case in the least, since the insulting remark is irrelevant to the issues at hand. As someone who is here presenting himself as knowledgeable in various areas of scientific inquiry, and who (I assume) believes that evidence and logic resolve arguments, ad hominem vituperation would seem to be a poor choice for a debate technique.

        In short, are you able to make your case without insulting and attacking others, simply staying with evidence and logic?

      • MkKS

        Your abject ignorance of home schooling casts reason for doubting everything you say. Some universities that admit home-schooled students include Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Duke, Rice, WashUStL…Don’t believe me? You can easily call their admissions offices to verify.

        Penn has a computer science professor who was home-schooled. One of my home-schoolers earned a degree at Columbia.

        What do these top tier universities know that escapes your prejudiced misunderstanding of home education?

    • Jim

      I’m regret having to say this but your argument is utterly absurd. You do not throw out the one field of science based on by errors made in a different field at a different time. You don’t throw it out based on errors, in any event; you really do not want to get into the theological errors that were made in the past. By your same argument – the law of batting averages – you can argue that anything a persons who calls himself a scientist must be correct because television, automobiles, and Google work and they were developed based on science.

      • theUSAparty

        Jim, the article is about Bill Nye (and other Climate Changers) who ridicule people who don’t agree with them. The last sentence of my 3rd Comment simply implies that its hard to believe that only 3% of scientists disagree with the “97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming”. I mean, you can’t find 97% of Republicans who agree that Barry Soetoro should go to prison. 😉

  • Jim Walker

    In the beginning there is nothing and then suddenly there is a Big Bang ? hahahaaa… and that created life ? hahaaaaa..

    • Rob Klaers

      No.. the Big Bang didn’t create life. Life came a long time after.

      And since we’re all apes, we are all primates. You, me, your uncle, my grandmothers… all primates.

      • Jim Walker

        If in the beginning there is nothing, how to have a big bang ?
        You can speak for yourself, I’m no ape, all of us here are God-made.

        • Colin Wright

          “The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared”. The quote is easy to find and is from the Independent (10/24/16). I won’t provide a link because my last comment (which did have a link to scientific papers) was rejected by the moderator.

          • Bruce Miller

            Well, if THE Pope said it then it must be true. Sarcasm intended.

          • Jim Walker

            The pope is right though, God isn’t a magician. God is “I AM”.

            However, all things are spoken into being. Jesus is the Word. Without Him nothing can be created.

            Just because the anatomy of a human resemble an ape, does not make us one.

            Evolution can apply to all animals for all I care but man is formed by the Hands of God.

          • Rebecca Albrecht Brewer

            No one who believes in God has ever said The Big Bang didn’t happen.

    • nopetrol

      We don’t actually claim that the “Big Bang” is what caused the beginning of the universe- it’s just a statement that the universe was much denser and hotter than it was now. Unlike religious people, scientists give an honest answer when asked what caused the beginning of the universe: we don’t know.

      • theUSAparty

        Without a “Bang”, you create holes in your cosmic timeline. You really shouldn’t make fun of “religious people” when your statement of “the universe was much denser and hotter than it is now” makes you sound less informed. Without a Big Bang, how do you explain the CMB radiation? A podcast called God-Talk does a great job of debunking the Harling-Hawking Cosmological Theory and explaining the Multiverse.
        Apparently, people watching a TV show found out that the Big Bang was conceived by a Jesuit Priest and blessed by the Pope, and therefore, scientist must prove it is wrong after proving it was correct for 80 years. What next, scientists are going to “prove the universe is not expanding” because the same religious person conceived that as well? So much of the science today was created by “religious people”, it will be very difficult to run away from all of them.

  • dcbeall

    Excellent article!

  • Alexander Hamilton

    Great article Dr Meyer! Keep up your excellent work!

  • Timothy Horton

    It’s both. I like explaining real science as opposed to the usual ID-Creationist woo, and it’s quite entertaining watching the new and different ways the ID-Creationists keep finding to make fools of themselves. 🙂

  • Jim

    You really should not be listen to anybody who spouts off like, Mr. Meyer does, without having any cited facts to back things up. You do not debate science with name calling, innuendo, anecdotes, or un-referenced facts.

    • Rebecca Albrecht Brewer

      I cannot speak to Mr. Meyer’s references regarding global warming. However his books Darwin’s Doubt and Signature in the Cell are substantial, EXTREMELY well-referenced texts. I challenge you to read them. Or, you could continue to just “spout off”.

      • Jim

        Touche. But bear in mind it is not only that it is well referenced it is what the references are and how they are used. I know enough about both subjects to know that the accepted view on both subjects is not as much a a slam-dunk as the conventional wisdom of most scientists would think. But Mr. Meyer here is throwing out a lot of science with a wave of his hand because he does not like Bill Nye.
        .

      • Timothy Horton

        Meyers isn’t a scientist, his training is in philosophy. Both of his books have been thoroughly shredded by real geneticists and real paleontolgists for their misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and outright lies. It’s easy to find devastating reviews of Meyer’s garbage by real science professionals.

    • nopetrol

      That’s actually the only way to debate when you’re wrong and you know it.

    • moinsd

      Not unlike what the likes of Bill Nye and Al Gore do. So we shouldn’t be listening to them either.

      • Jim

        Gore and Nye are essentially reporters, not experts as this purports to be.

        • moinsd

          You said “anybody”. Not “reporters” or “experts” or anything else. Also: Nye and Gore are reporters?? Since when?

          • Jim

            Reporters, as in report what others say. They have no scientific credentials as this guy claims. Everybody has a right to speak, but if you claim expertise you need to be judged accordingly.

          • J. Stil

            I still do not see the reasoning behind downplaying and dismissing Bill Nye’s education in science. Is it really a proper way to dismiss his claims or the claims he is reporting of most climate scientists? Admittedly, Nye worked in local television and on nationally syndicated kids’ shows, but that doesn’t mean he is completely ignorant to the subjects he discusses. By this same logic then, while Stephen Meyer went to Cambridge for his post-graduate studies, he got his bachelor’s from Whitworth University. Should we really be listening to a graduate of a school whose educators are called “dedicated Christian scholars”? Seems this would hamper our pursuit of objective truth. Has anyone ever even heard of this school? He appears to be the most notable graduate the place ever produced. Whitworth’s acceptance rate is ~75%. Cornell’s acceptance rate is 60 points lower than that.

            Carl Sagan was one of Bill Nye’s professors at Cornell, and Cornell isn’t exactly the easiest school to be admitted to or do well at. And while I don’t want to appeal to the authority or elitism of Ivy League schools, I would like to add that Cornell has produced 50x the number of world-class scientists and other noteworthy graduates than Whitworth could hope to crank out in another 127 years. And Cornell was also founded only a few decades years before Whitworth. So much for Stephen Meyer having a more grounded or enriching initial science education than Nye. Also curious to know what Stephen Meyer ever invented, patented, developed or contributed to our society. I mean, other than muddying the waters of scientific inquiry and data analysis.

        • historiavita

          The problem is that both of them, especially Nye, *do* present themselves as experts on the matter. Nye especially cloaks himself with seeming scientific legitimacy, and neither of them exhibit in the least the humility that ought to be present when one is anything but a trained subject matter expert.

  • XaurreauX

    The sole basis for denying evolution is the denier’s terror that it is true. Creationism is not a failure to understand; it is a refusal to understand. Evolution is for grownups.

    • Ukulelemike

      Interesting, I would say exactly the opposite: the sole basis for denying God as Creator is fear that it is true, because admitting a Creator means accountability to the Same. Evolution is a failure from the get go and has no basis in fact, and is, in fact, against all established natural laws. Creation is for adults, evolution is for Pokemon.

      • XaurreauX

        Desperate, wishful thinking. “God went POOF” is for children.

        • New River Valley FCA

          Saying the World went “POOF” “BANG”, or whatever you guys say, from Nothing- instead of a creator making it happen is much more desperate and wishful.

          • nopetrol

            We don’t actually claim that the “Big Bang” is what caused the beginning of the universe- it’s just a statement that the universe was much denser and hotter than it was now. Unlike religious people, scientists give an honest answer when asked what caused the beginning of the universe: we don’t know.

          • Diesel Driver

            You’re right. Real scientists answer such questions honestly, that they don’t know. Christians who are also scientists, know that God caused the beginning of the universe. Science tells us “what” happens, not “why” it happens.

          • historiavita

            How is giving an answer based on both faith and reason, which are completely compatible, dishonest? What is dishonest for a person of faith, such as a Muslim, to state that she believes Allah created the universe? Unless, of course, what one is really arguing is that faith as such, that belief as such, is somehow fundamentally dishonest, which as a proposition makes no particular sense, since faith qua faith, and belief qua belief, contain nothing of honesty or dishonesty in them. It is only when one talks of particular articles of faith, or particular beliefs that a quality of honesty, or dishonesty could even begin to enter the discussion, and even then, not really. Is one trying to argue that someone is speaking with honesty or dishonesty about her faith, or beliefs? Well and good. Is one saying that a particular article of faith, or a particular belief, is honest, or dishonest? More complicated, and not really the sort of question one would ask first.

            For a scientist, or anyone else of any profession (or none), who doesn’t believe in some sort of Creator deity, the answer “I don’t know” is one of the likeliest given (or extra-universal aliens?) in response to the question of “What caused the beginning of the universe?”—if by that is meant, “Who, or what, created the universe?” The person who believed in some sort of Creator, of whatever kind, will give that Creator in answer to the question. Both are honest answers, one no more than the other.

          • John Hart

            It’s amazing as the four main branches of science converge on proving Reality, the Cosmos, life, and consciousness, all required a massive influx of information in order to exist, so many are unable to see it.

          • XaurreauX

            Actually, you aren’t even vaguely interested in what science has to say because on some level you already know. Denial of evolution is willfully ignorant and infantile.

  • Joe Bastardi

    outstanding

  • C Kim Lemieux

    His comments on evolution are interesting but not if he making a case for creationism.

    • John Hart

      Creationism is not the same as Intelligent Design in any way, shape or form. Creationists believe in a young Earth. As a theory Creationism explains less than Evolution, but at least it’s consistent, and within the scope of the omnipotent God necessary for Reality to exist. But it makes little sense in a Universe that’s obviously billions of years old.

      • Diesel Driver

        I like to think that the verse in the Bible that says to God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day means that the “days” listed in Genesis are not literal 24 hour days and that God created the universe and all it’s physical laws 13.8 or whatever billions of years ago as WE measure time. Since God is omniscient and omnipotent He could have created it 6,000 years ago with evidence that it was 13.8 billion years old but good old occam’s razor says it wasn’t created 6,000 years ago. Even if it was, it’s still 13.8 billion years old because it was created old.

        The thing almost everyone gets wrong is that evolution is real but it’s controlled by God. Science is supposed to be the study of how things work, what the natural laws are. The Bible tells us WHY they work the way they do.

        The answer to that is simple. It works that way because God made it to work that way. As the Creator he is quite free to violate those laws when and if He feels the need. We call those actions “miracles”. Trying to understand God’s motives is totally impossible. The best answer I have come up with, in my opinion, is that there is some characteristic He wants us to have that requires all the things that goes on and that even in the face of hardship and tragedy, we still choose to love Him and follow His teachings. The ones who don’t are somehow defective for His purpose but that purpose requires free will and the ability to choose correctly in this matter. Those who don’t are consigned to Hell. I don’t know why. This is just my best guess. If we as Christians are wrong and there is no God then when we die we are gone. If we are right, then we go to heaven. That was my reason for choosing as I did, to follow the teachings of the Bible. It was only after I did so that I found out how much fun and fulfillment there is to loving and helping others.

        • John Hart

          It’s not a Hell of God’s making, it’s a artifact of how beings exist. After the body God creates for them dies, their soul continues to exist in the same place everything does. If they lived a life seeking God, they can enter the Kingdom, If they lived a life defying God, they can’t, but will still exist connected to their prior self, suffering forever what they’ve done to others, until the evil they embraced consumes it’s self. Fear of punishment by God is not a reason to follow, but the Law of Karma is a good reason for changing one’s ways.

          • J. Stil

            Do you have demonstrable evidence for that, John Hart?

          • John Hart

            Atheists rightly don’t like most religion’s response to their final argument, ‘Then what causes God’. What you’re asking is much the same. Evidence you can exist without a material body. For those who believe Reality exists without cause, and is the source of existence, recognizing the ‘evidence’ is impossible, but for those who realize Reality is a relationship of information, not substance, the evidence abounds with meaning apparent to those who understand it. For those constrained to Hell, it doesn’t matter who makes it, but many who reject God, do so because phony religion says god punishes those who reject God’s Law. God doesn’t punish sinners, God’s Law is given to warn, not to coheres behavior. In some ways Buddhism is a better explanation, Buddhists don’t live right for reward, or to escape punishment, they live right because it’s who they are.
            Quantum Physics is a good place to start. Histories are information that control particles, when everything is known behavior is predictable, when not behavior becomes uncertain, but converges on laws of regular Physics. Uncertainty is the window to the quantum domain, a non existent place, where existence is possible, but nothing is without cause. God is the one and only eternal relationship, symbolized by beings of Truth, Love and Will. Other kinds of beings exist the same way, but they consume themselves and each other, because Love is the only relationship where giving has priority over taking. When you’re created in the world, a mirror image forms in the quantum soup, like a quantum computer being initialized, with process in a hierarchy, taking the load off Reality, and doing the logic in the quantum domain.

      • C Kim Lemieux

        It’s easy to be consistent when you can make it up as you go along.

        It’s an unhelpful conclusion to believe that “an omnipotent God” is “necessary for Reality to exist.”

        • John Hart

          It’s not an unhelpful conclusion, it’s a necessary first step in understanding how and why Reality exists. The only other option is to assume the complex laws, and hundreds of constants necessary for existence have no cause, and just happen to be. That’s an infinitely larger leap of faith than believing a mind could exists with properties that make it eternal. All it takes to make computational processes possible is two logical functions, AND and NOT, a far simpler starting point than ‘A self manifesting Universe’. Minds exist in computational system. Minds form relationships with other minds. Love is the only eternal relationship, therefore God is Love, and Reality is an information process within the Mind of God.
          The possibility of existence can never be explained or understood, but what’s necessary for Reality, and life it makes can! Those who reject the concept of a Creator, limit themselves to answers like, ‘Evolution did it.’ And explanations for the brilliant Laws, and finely tuned constants,
          to ideas like, an unlimited number of unexplained Realities, with an unlimited number of unexplained properties, and we happen to be in one where life can spontaneously form, because if it weren’t true, we wouldn’t be here. The fact it violates Occam’s Razor, and is most likely Uncomputable, escapes believers in nonsense like the Multiverse and mindless evolution.

          • C Kim Lemieux

            No, we don’t limit ourselves at all. We are simply comfortable with saying “we don’t know.”

          • John Hart

            By we, if you mean those who reject the concept of a Creator, and since nothing can exist without one, it’s a limit that will block any real understanding. For those who’s minds are open to the possibility God exists, and is necessary for them to exist, the evidence is overwhelming when placed in the proper framework. The fact Reality was created and is sustained by ‘God’, doesn’t mean anything on a personal level if God doesn’t care about you.
            If God wasn’t love, there’d be no reason God should matter to
            anyone. Reality is an information process in the mind of it’s Creator, and by the size of the Cosmos it’s obvious the Creator has existed for a very long time. The one thing everyone knows is they exist and are conscious. There’s no logical reason to exclude consciousness as the cause of Reality, and a multitude of evidence supporting the conclusion, it had to be designed.

          • C Kim Lemieux

            Again, you’re making conclusions not in evidence.
            If you want to believe in a Creator, I’m not stopping you. But, because you feel it and believe it, doesn’t make it so.

            It doesn’t make it not so either. But, it’s not scientific evidence.

          • John Hart

            Everyone is deceived, and like a computer virus deception blocks recognition of the fact one is deceived. Evidence requires a framework in order to have meaning. In the wrong framework, evidence tends to support wrong conclusions. Even masters of Quantum Physics and Information Science fail to see the evidence proves within limits of the Razor that Reality was designed, so it’s not too disappointing you don’t. I read some of your posts and was impressed. Your continued objections indicate truth within is trying to reach you, unfortunately a meta program blinding has the upper hand. As for evidence, once you understand, Relativity, Hilbert Space, Uncertainty, NP Complete, and Uncomputability, in conjunction with ramifications of the Anthropic Principle, you’ll have the tools necessary to decide on the basis of science. However proof God exists won’t prove God loves you, and without faith it’s impossible to feel God’s love. Sorry I can’t make it any clearer, good bye.

  • nopetrol

    This article presents no evidence for any of its claims and relies on nothing but the authority of the author- exactly what it’s falsely accusing the other side of doing.

    • John Hart

      Claiming the article presents no evidence, is easily seen to be untrue, yet you couldn’t see it, and didn’t refute it, instead made a false accusation, verifying the point he so clearly made.

      • Jim

        So what evidence is presented?

  • nopetrol

    “Small-scale “micro-evolutionary” changes can’t explain large-scale “macro-evolution.””

    Actually, what you call “macro-evolution” is just a sum of many subsequent instances of “micro-evolution”, so by asserting that one exist you are already admitting that the other does too.

    I think you make this distinction as an attempt tho get people to think that scientists believe that major changes happen in single generations. Most criticizing of evolution is simply mis-informing people about how it actually works.

    • John Hart

      A logical gate could exist by chance. A computer system is just a sum of many subsequent instances of a gate, so by asserting one, you’re admitting so could the other? The simplest cells have computing system we’re just starting to understand, that can do things we haven’t achieved yet, after billions of hours of research by highly intelligent men. Proposing random selection replace design of devices used in the modern world, would be a good way of getting a pink slip.
      Technology is evolving and trial and error plays an important part, but it has to be a carefully controlled process, guided by insight, and focused on targets. Mindless evolutionary systems will converge on chaos, not order. The theory of Intelligent Design doesn’t specify who does the design, only that it takes a conscious mind to set goals, and judge progress of the process. More than likely a mind or minds formed in the ocean of cells transforming Earth into a livable place, and when the time was right, their designs were copied into cells and released. A memory of the process probably exists in the biosphere today, and at some point ID scientist are going to figure out how to access it. Evolution has become the Atheist god, when asked where life came from they say evolution did it, and are deceived into believing it’s more scientific than saying god did it.

      • Timothy Horton

        Analogies aren’t evidence. Human designed computing machines are only superficially like biological life. Like all analogies that one too breaks down when the details are examined.

        Proposing random selection replace design of devices used in the modern world, would be a good way of getting a pink slip.

        You have no idea what you’re talking about. There is a whole branch of Computer Science called Evolutionary Algorithms which model natural evolutionary processes to solve complex problems other human design methods cannot.

        The theory of Intelligent Design doesn’t specify who does the design,
        only that it takes a conscious mind to set goals, and judge progress of
        the process.

        Wrong again. Evolution doesn’t set goals or judge progress any more than gravity does.

        • John Hart

          “Human designed computing machines are only superficially like biological
          life. Like all analogies that one too breaks down when the details are
          examined.” In what way? A theorem of information science saying the opposite has been proven. The extra qualities of life such as self replication, which makes life far more complex than man made systems, doesn’t reduce the complexity of life, or exempt it from laws that apply to information processing systems. This common argument evolutionists make is demonstrably false. It’s based on the premise evolution doesn’t have to follow laws of other scientific disciplines, putting it in the category of other “sciences”, like astrology and perpetual motion.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! Gotta love computer “scientists”. Take a model that is an ill fit to reality, show the model doesn’t work, claim that proves reality must not work either. That’s what passes for logic with the scientifically illiterate ID crowd.

          • John Hart

            Thanks, I needed a laugh. The multidimensional evolutionary algorithm I’m developing failed, and it looked like it might be a dead end, which was depressing considering the time invested, but while trying to explain the necessity of constraints to you,
            I realized It was taking too big a step(needed another constraint). Un-guided evolution doesn’t have the power to solve anything, and life is the most complex problem man has encountered. Denying the Creator, denies life’s purpose, and makes it near impossible to really understand anything. This will be my last post, keep an open mind, and good luck on your search for truth.

          • J. Stil

            How does a “Creator” give life purpose without revealing what the purpose is?
            Does the “Creator” correct life’s mistakes? How does an infallible and omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient deity create living beings flawed and ignorant enough to doubt that deity?

          • John Hart

            I wasn’t going to post any more, but you asked some good questions, so I’ll give it another try. Life’s purpose is revealed to any that ask. Dame Julian did and was told, “He that made man for love, by the same love He would restore man to the same bliss.” Her writings make it clear, Life’s purpose is to enable people to discover what love really is.
            Many grow up with a child’s view of God like Santa Claus, and reject the concept without looking to see if it means anything more. Most blindly accept what authorities tell them, but some spend their lives seeking truth. I rejected my indoctrination and started over, but no matter how much I learned, it always came down to a matter of Faith, as the Case for Christ movie tried to show. The root of the problem is confusion about who or what God is.
            The possibility of existence can’t be explained, but the reason
            it does can. Occam’s razor is the key that opens the door. At the quantum level, relationships exist, things don’t. Things appear and disappear according to rules of probability. Things are a projection of Information in the Quantaverse. Information is a relationship, and the only eternal relationship is Love. God exists in the same place and in the same way as you, and God is eternal because God is Love. Without Truth, there can be no Love, and without Will there can be no love, so Love is the highest, as John said. The Father symbolizes truth, which establishes laws necessary for Reality, and the Spirit symbolizes the Will to do what’s right.
            It doesn’t matter how flawed and ignorant one is, all that matters is one’s relationship with God.
            Unfortunately some beings made by God’s Reality choose not to follow the golden rule, spread lies, and deceive people for selfish reasons. The reason for doubt of God’s love is deception. Without faith, there can be no love, and it’s hard to have faith when one doesn’t feel loved. It’s a Catch 22 situation, many are trapped in, but there’s a way out for those who don’t give up.

          • J. Stil

            I was asking rhetorically.

            You’re right to say that “grown-ups” have an indoctrinated child’s view of authority and God. However, to reject that concept is to reject belief in a supernatural creator altogether. Faith is a completely different matter, and anyone who wishes for a better life or an afterlife has hopes. People all over the world have hopes and faith in their chances after death outside of their “faith” in Christ. Some of this human tendency translates to membership in dangerous cults and participation in violent fundamentalist sects.

            Being a good person does not require that one believe in a god. Having a positive outlook on life and attempting to help others overcome hardship and existential grief does not need the Christian Bible. Love is a mental and philosophical construct, just as much as religion and theism are. To the extent that these things, in whatever form they have taken over time, have helped our species become more ethical or altruistic, I am a believer also. Beyond this, gods can be created and destroyed. Matter and scientific truth cannot be. They are permanent.

        • John Hart

          “Ad Hom clipped. There is a whole branch of Computer Science called Evolutionary Algorithms which model natural evolutionary processes to solve complex problems other human design methods cannot.”
          They are in the class of “Trial and error” you failed to recognize, and it’s obvious you don’t know they must be constrained and directed in order to work, which is the point you failed to respond to.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! So the process works fine for human problem solving but it somehow doesn’t work in nature, where the humans got it from. That is a pretty stupid claim even by ID’s low standards.

        • John Hart

          The theory of Intelligent Design doesn’t specify who does the design, only that it takes a conscious mind to set goals, and judge progress of the process.

          “Wrong again. Evolution doesn’t set goals or judge progress any more than gravity does.”

          A classic example of responding to the opposite. You restated the
          point I made about limitations of mindless evolution, which shows you recognized it, then claimed I was wrong in denying it. Humpty Dumpty couldn’t of said it better, “Words mean just what I choose them to mean—neither more nor less.”

          • Timothy Horton

            The theory of Intelligent Design doesn’t specify who does the design,
            only that it takes a conscious mind to set goals, and judge progress of
            the process.

            There is no theory of ID. There isn’t even a testable hypothesis of ID. All ID has now is pure speculation based on a desire to somehow make science support religious beliefs.

  • Moshe

    Nye is a paid mouthpiece for those who wish to shut off debate.

    • Jim

      Because it is not a matter of debate. You debate opinions; you analyze facts.

      • Diesel Driver

        There is always debate. You can analyze the facts for sure but then there’s going to be debate about what they mean. That is, unless you’re a person who believes in “settled science”.

        • Jim

          The way these things are done now is a model is developed and then correlated to obsrvations. The model is tremendously comlex and contingent upon initial conditions, the ability have a single model that would accurately predict all conditons from the initial formation of the earth to now will never happen. So you have a climate model, which likely can’t prdict El Ninos but we can gloss over that, that you can use for the past few centuries. You can then say there is a 99% certainity that CO2 and temperature are correlated and sunspots are not. I do not see that as a debate, although everybody is always welcome to check the math.

          • historiavita

            Except that part of the serious challenge here is that the models and the data aren’t correlating in numerous cases, but too many insist on the models, rather than truly allowing the data to guide changes in the models. Also, how models are developed, used, critiqued, altered, relied upon, etc. is far more complex, and not nearly as neat, as you describe. Having spent time working in a theoretical chem research group, where all that was done was modeling and working with experimentalists as collaborators, I know something about what I am saying.

            Regardless of models, or anything else, Nye is a hack who is not a scientist to begin with. He has a basic degree in mechanical engineering, which is a perfectly legitimate, good discipline, but certainly not one that provides him a shred of expertise on all the topics he purports to speak with learned knowledge. Furthermore, anyone who truly believes in science as a great pursuit of knowledge about us and our universe, using the tools of reason and experimentation, ought never to be talking about prosecuting, and persecuting, those who hold to different opinions. When he does so, how is he any different than those who persecuted Galileo? How is he different than those in totalitarian countries that held particular stances on scientific questions, and prosecuted those who took differing stances? When he talks like this, he reveals himself not only as a hack, but as an ideologue, not a serious believer in open, honest scientific inquiry. That makes him, and those like him, enemies of what science stands for.

          • Timothy Horton

            Nye has never claimed to be a scientist. He is however a very good spokesperson for science and the scientific presentations he gives are always well supported and scientifically accurate. RW conservatives hate the implications of scientific research on climate change and evolution. They can’t refute the solid science so they resort to attacking the messenger.

          • stever777

            The vast majority of the climate change models have proved to be inaccurate in their predictions, and not by a little.

          • Timothy Horton

            No, they haven’t. Most all of them have had the actual changes fall within their uncertainty ranges albeit on the low side.

            If the weatherman tells you it will snow 3″ to 6 ” tomorrow and we get 3.5″ that doesn’t make the weatherman inaccurate.

      • Moshe

        Nye has failed at both

        • Timothy Horton

          I’m sure he’s crying all the way to the bank. 🙂

  • Diesel Driver

    It used to be “settled science” that the Earth was flat and you could fall off the edge. It used to be “settled science” that the Earth was the center of the solar system and universe. It used to be “settled science” that heavier than air flying vehicles were impossible. It used to be “settled science” that atoms were the smallest building blocks of the universe, The word “atom” comes from the Greek for indivisible.

    As for “global man made climate change” if that’s an accurate name for the claims of Nye, Gore and all the others who insist that it’s “settled science” it is a fact that the climate changes regardless of what man does. I have no doubt that mankind has some minute affect on climate but natural events are the controlling factors. The Earth’s orbit is elliptical and it’s axis of rotation is tilted and both precess at different rates while the Sun is a variable star with short, medium and long term oscillations. As the alignment of these variations change and sometimes coincide and at other times oppose the temperature of the Earth changes. In addition to that, volcanoes erupting do enormously more to change the climate than man made changes. Mount Saint Helen’s recent eruption while fairly small compared to many, put hundreds of times more “greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere than all of mankind’s activities since we learned how to make fire.

    So, to answer the question “is there man made global warming” the answer is “yes” with the caveat that while true, it is insignificant. The “hot air” spewed by global warming alarmists is far more polluting than our cars and power plants.

    • Timothy Horton

      The Earth’s orbit is elliptical and it’s axis of rotation is tilted and
      both precess at different rates while the Sun is a variable star with
      short, medium and long term oscillations. As the alignment of these
      variations change and sometimes coincide and at other times oppose the
      temperature of the Earth changes.

      Those effects have been closely examined and ruled out as causal factors for the recent rapid temperature rise.

      Mount Saint Helen’s recent eruption while fairly small compared to many,
      put hundreds of times more “greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere than
      all of mankind’s activities since we learned how to make fire.

      LOL! No, that is a demonstrable climate change denier lie. While volcanoes do contribute somewhat to greenhouse gases their overall effect is minor over time compared to the human produced effect.

      You may want to try reading the primary scientific literature on the subject instead of RW fossil fuel company sponsored propaganda web sites. I recommend the journal Nature: Climate Change as a good place to start.

    • Dave Nesbitt

      Perhaps you should consider that I don’t need to be lectured by you. I was obviously being sarcastic. Doh.

  • James Langston

    Wow! To say that Bill Nye is not a scientist because his degree is in engineering is the same as saying that Stephen Meyer is not qualified to comment on evolution because his degree is in geophysics not genetics! What qualifies as being a scientist? Anyone who has a degree in science or engineering has learned the scientific method and is capable of critical thinking. Stop attacking the scientist and look at the data and data analysis! Then make your argument based on the data, not on the scientist!

    • historiavita

      Learning the scientific method is Day One in junior high and high school. Simply knowing the method, and being a critical thinker, absolutely does not qualify one to be a subject matter expert. Bill Nye is an engineer, not a research scientist. Engineering is a different kind of discipline than the basic science disciplines (which is no negative in the least, merely different). Nye likes to cloak himself in some sort of scientific expertise, but he has zero advanced formal training in any field (since he has only a bachelor’s), let alone in the fields of scientific inquiry he pronounces on. That’s not to say he can’t study and learn, but he is most certainly not an expert with any contribution in any of these fields, and has no more of worth to say on climate science than any other autodidact. That does not demean the autodidact! But he should never present himself, or allow himself to be presented, as anything but an amateur. Unfortunately, this is not the case. He clearly loves people viewing him as some sort of mouthpiece for SCIENCE! and happily, and frequently, proclaims all sorts of things he has never been trained in, nor contributed to.

      This is quite different than Carl Sagan, for example, who not only had a Ph.D. in his field, but had done extensive further research work over many years. He was obviously a great popularizer of science, like Nye, but far, far more educated and advanced in his field, and therefore could speak with much greater expertise.

      I would not necessarily take issue with someone arguing that Meyer treads outside his field in risky ways if he writes and speaks extensively on genetics, versus his degreed field of geophysics. That doesn’t mean he can’t learn about genetics, and can’t comment on the field, but his comments should be understood as that of an amateur in that area, if they are purely his, and not those of geneticist collaborators.

      • Timothy Horton

        Meyer’s two attempts at science books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt have been thoroughly shredded by real geneticists and paleontologists (respectively) for Meyer’s beginner’s mistakes, disinformation, and outright lies. Meyer only wrote the books as political propaganda for the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge” plan to get the Christian Bible’s mythology forced back into public school science classes.

        • LT

          What do you mean by “the Christian Bible’s mythology”? That’s a confusing statement since the Christian Bible has no mythology in it. Did you confuse it with some other book? Or are you simply that uninformed?

          • Timothy Horton

            Of course it does. A literal creation of the world in 6 days only 6000 years ago, a literal global Noah’s flood, a literal Tower of Babel – all are mythological and have in fact been thoroughly disproven by science.

          • LT

            You are completely unaware of the issues apparently. Actually none of these things have been “thoroughly disproven by science.” To the contrary, there are some things that can only be explained by these things.

            I always cringe when I see uninformed people engaging in these types of discussions. It’s embarrassing on a number of different levels for people like yourself. Please take a bit of time before commenting and inform yourself.

          • Timothy Horton

            You are completely unaware of the issues apparently. Actually none of these things have been “thoroughly disproven by science.”

            LOL! Of course they’ve been disproven.We have dozens of lines of independent evidence the planet is way older than 6000 years. Lake varves, ice core samples, dendrochronology, coral growth bands,etc. We have geologic features like angular unconformities and 180 deg. switchback incised river meanders which are physically impossible to form in a one time,one year flood. Not to mention 9000 years of continuous Chinese history, folks who apparently lived right through Noah’s Deluge without even noticing. 🙂

            I suggest you take the time to read a science book instead of AIG and Chick tracts.

          • LT

            I don’t read AIG or Chick tracts, but the issue isn’t about being 6000 years old. That’s another sign that you are simply ignorant regarding the substance of the conversation. The problem is that you have bought into mythology that everything we see is explainable by what we can see. It is scientifically impossible. It is an act of pure and irrational faith. I don’t have enough faith to be an evolutionist. You do. And that’s a major difference.

          • Timothy Horton

            is that your way of admitting the 6000 year old / created in 6 days Earth and the Noah’s Flood / Noah’s Ark stories are indeed mythology and indeed have been disproven?

            I don’t have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

            I have too much intelligence and honesty to be a Creationist.

          • LT

            No, you don’t. You have admitted you are ignorant of the issues of the debate. It is dishonest to say that the world as we see it came about apart from a Creator. It is scientifically impossible. It is mathematically impossible. You have a greater chance of winning the Powerball lottery multiple times than you do of even one of the millions of necessary things for evolution taking place. And that’s only one thing. You have to multiple that by billions to get the world as we know it. And you have to ignore what we know about the world. It is dishonest and/or ignorant to pretend otherwise. There is a Creator. The world is unexplainable otherwise.

          • Timothy Horton

            Show me that math which demonstrates evolution is impossible. Creationists love to make such blustering grandiose claims but can never back them up.

          • LT

            Seriously? You are this uninformed and you are dogmatic anyway? How does that work? How can you be dogmatic about something you know nothing about?

            The chances of all of the random things happening the way they did to evolve into the world we know is statistically impossible. The random mutations required to evolve upward are scientifically impossible. It simply doesn’t work. Even evolutionists admit that the odds are astoundingly outrageous. They simply believe it anyway.

            You really need to do some work on this before spouting off about it.

          • Timothy Horton

            The chances of all of the random things happening the way they did to evolve into the world we know is statistically impossible.

            You keep blithering about how impossible evolution is so show me the math which demonstrates why it is impossible. Listening to you pass gas all day doesn’t demonstrate anything, except that you’re full of gas.

          • LT

            Do you seriously not know? Don’t take my word for it. Google it and you can see the astronomical odds. And then see the silliness that evolutionists engage in to argue the odds were defied.

            As is typical of your types, you want a short simplistic answer in a blog comment rather than go and study the depth of the issue. There is no way in a short blog comment that the issue could be framed and anyone convinced by such a comment would show themselves to be a fool. Instead, read the research and consider the evidence.

            Let me give you a simplistic example: Let’s say you are playing cards and the dealer, your opponent, deals himself four aces. What do you think? It could happen, but the odds are small right? You would be suspicious, but you would play. Now, he does it a second time. It’s possible to get four aces in two consecutive hands. But the odds are smaller than one hand. You would loudly complain. Let’s say he does it twenty times in a row. There is no way you think that he is dealing on the up and up. In fact, you were suspicious the first time. After the second you think he is cheating. You would never see the third or fourth much less the twentieth because you would have long ago left the table.

            And yet the odds of getting four aces in twenty consecutive hands are exponentially greater than the odds of evolution. It simply has no basis in reality. To know this, all you need to do is read the evidence with a bit of critical thought.

          • Timothy Horton

            Do you seriously not know? Don’t take my word for it

            I don’t take your word for it because I know for a fact it’s not true. You’re regurgitating some stupidity you read on a ID-Creationist site and have no clue how to begin to defend it. It’s probably IDiot Steven Meyer and his “150 amino acid protein can’t fall together by chance”. Well guess what Bunky – no one in science says or thinks evolution happens by chance alone. Evolution has a non-random feedback component – selection- that causes molecules like proteins to form and get more complex over many generations.

            No, a stupid analogy about drawing consecutive aces has nothing to do with biological evolution. A better analogy is playing draw poker where you get to discard and redraw as many times as you want. With that process you’d end up with an “impossible odds” royal straight flush almost every hand.

          • LT

            Again, you are so uninformed and unscientific. You have bought into the irrational assertion that it’s not really random. Have you ever read the argument in support of that? It wouldn’t pass a high school level logic class. Again, this is clearly too complex for a brief blog comment section and it seems a bit too complex for you given you apparent level of knowledge.

            The “stupid analogy” is spot on. Evolution is not getting to discard and redraw. Once the draw has happened, what was not drawn has disappeared. This is simple scientific theory. The intellectual bankruptcy of evolution is astounding and the fact that you don’t see it is shameful. It’s absolutely mindboggling to me that in this day of readily available information there are still people like yourself who are intent on living in the dark. There is no longer an excuse for it.

          • Timothy Horton

            LOL! More blustering gas from LT, still no calculations showing evolution is impossible.

            Creationists are all hat, no cattle.

          • LT

            You are typical. You want a soundbyte rather than considering the issue. The answer is that no argument about this would fit in this space. Yet, it is all over the place for those who are truly interested.

            But the truth is that you know this. You know it by experience and by observation. You know in your heart that it does not work without a Creator. It just doesn’t. But since you won’t listen to yourself, you can go and google it and listen to others who show the argument. You can follow it there.

          • Timothy Horton

            The answer is that no argument about this would fit in this space.

            The real answer is you have no calculations of any kind that show evolution is impossible. You keep blithering and passing gas and making excuses but you have no calculations.

            You know it, I know it, any lurkers left know it. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself with the same childish claim?

          • LT

            No, the calculations exist as an argument and if you were as intelligent as you claim, you would know about it already (just as I am informed enough to know not only the argument but the counterargument). That’s a major difference between you and me. I know what I am talking about because I know both sides. You don’t know one side at all and the other side very much. The fact is that the argument cannot be reproduced in this small forum. It is too complex. Your simple mind wants simple answer but actual science doesn’t work that way. What you are peddling here is myth bolstered by bravado. You are under the impression that if you talk enough you can create reality. But that doesn’t work.

            It’s rather embarrassing for you that you don’t know this. Here’s the nutshell. The chance of it is one in a billion trillion. And that is only for one successful organism. That doesn’t even account for the millions necessary to explain the world. Again, the argument is quite complex and you have revealed that you are in no way equipped to understand it, much less critique it. And the bad part is that you are completely unaware of that you are unaware. You don’t know what you don’t know.

            Here’s a tip: You can always tell when someone is uninformed because they have no idea what the counterarguments are. You are a prime case of that. You pretend to be knowledgeable and come with all sorts of bravado, but in the end, you don’t even know what you disagree with. You have already made basic factually mistakes and here you admit you don’t know the first thing about the possibility argument.

            I won’t continue to dignify this nonsense of yours with a response. If you are interested, then read up on it. My guess is that you aren’t actually interested. If you were, you would already know. To your shame, you want to try to attack those who actually do know.

          • Timothy Horton

            The chance of it is one in a billion trillion.

            LOL! A number pulled straight out of your nether regions.

            Where are your calculations that evolution is impossible?

            It is too complex.

            DOUBLE LOL! Apparently these magic arguments and calculations are so complex you can’t even describe them, let alone produce them.

            Time for the sad little creationist to flounce out. His supply of bluster and gas is getting him nowhere.

          • LT

            Did you spend even five minutes on google? Of course not. The number came right out of a scientific article that will show up on the first page of a google search. And other articles (both in support and refutation) will give the same number. And the math is irrefutable it appears. No one questions the math that I have found. The only refutation is your response that it really isn’t random chance, and there were so many of these mutations going on that some were bound to work. Well, that’s a dumb response that misses the whole point of what “random” means. Even the responses to it admit the very high improbability of their revised calculations and they admit they are only dealing with theorized events, events that cannot be proven. How in the world do you not know this?

            You are simply ignorant. There’s no other option at this point. And I gave you multiple chances to go and find the facts. I gave you multiple chances to back out silently. Yet you kept coming back and revealing to every reader that you are arrogant and ignorant and you deny the obvious. And you are not even wise enough to be embarrassed by it.

          • Timothy Horton

            Still the same bluster and gas, still no calculations.

            I already described the idiotic “it’s too improbable!!” arguments you can find on Creationist websites with a Google search, and I explained why they are wrong. You just keep belching gas and childishly posturing because it’s all you know how to do. You’re way too ignorant to understand how evolutionary processes actually work and way too lazy to learn.

          • LT

            You seem to think you are in a different conversation. Your sole explanation of why it was wrong was “it’s not really random,” which isn’t actually a response and isn’t even true. You have been thoroughly exposed both as ignorant and lazy.

            You can find very similar arguments on evolutionist websites who admit it is highly improbable. They simply differ about how high the probability is.

            So I have the facts on my side and you have nothing but namecalling. In this blog comment section, that will work. But it won’t work in real life.

          • Timothy Horton

            Still way too ignorant to understand how evolutionary processes actually work I see. Still way too lazy to learn.

            Evolution has a random component (variations) and a non-random component (selection). It will never work by the stupid strawman version your “it’s impossible!!” arguments depend on.

            Oh, and still no calculations to back up your gas spewing and chirping Creationist chicken beak.

          • LT

            No, I am neither ignorant nor lazy. It is obvious in this discussion who that applies to. I am the one who looked it up. You didn’t. I am the one who knows. You don’t.

            As I already pointed out, the “selection” answer to randomness is simply silly. It is not a serious response. You know that, or at least you would if you had read anything on it.

            The calculations are available. Again, they are too involved to be reproduced here. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that. The fact that you think this can be reproduced meaningfully in a blog comment shows just how uninformed you are. No amount of pretentious namecalling will change that.

          • Timothy Horton

            You’re both willfully ignorant and lazy. You can’t produce any calculations supporting your dumb claim because they don’t exist. You’re even too cowardly to C&P the supposed calculations (from Morris of the ICR, or IDiots Dembski or Behe) because you know they’ve already been torn to shreds and will be again. 🙂

            Keep blustering and passing that creationist gas. It’s all you’re capable of.

          • LT

            You have apparently confused me for someone else. I have been very clear about the issue. I am neither ignorant nor lazy. I have shown to you be ignorant because you do not understand this issue and are unaware of the facts and you are lazy because you refuse to look it up.

            The calculations do not need to be reproduced here. They are readily available and they can be judged there. If you read the refutations, you will see that the refutations actually agree that it is highly improbable, they just differ on the actual probability. The refutations are, on their face, stupid and silly.

            You live in your own reality. You are free to do that but don’t confuse that with being intelligent or informed. You are neither.

          • Timothy Horton

            I have been very clear about the issue.

            Yes you’ve made it very clear you’re a blustering coward who can’t back up his moronic Creationist claims with any calculations at all. You can’t even provide a reference to the Creationist site where you saw these “evolution is impossible!!” calculations because you know they would get easily refuted if you did.

            LT is all bluster, all gas passing, all the time. 🙂

    • stever777

      I think the complaint had to do with an undergraduate degree with no experience in any scientific discipline versus a Ph.D. who has been involved in a scientific discipline.

      • Timothy Horton

        That has nothing to do with the fact Nye’s science is supported by the actual scientific research while Meyer’s ID-Creation idiocy is demonstrably wrong.

        It’s like the famous Einstein quote. Einstein was told of a new book titled 100 scientists against Einstein. He replied “Why 100? If they were correct 1 would have been enough”.

        • Dave Nesbitt

          “actual scientific research” – wrong. By research, do you mean the IPCC data that was fraudulently changed to meet their political goals?

      • Ian

        I’d say that philosophizing *about* science is arguably less experience with any scientific discipline than practical application as an engineer.

    • MkKS

      I agree. Engineers are trained in the scientific method: if they weren’t, Boeing aircraft (where Bill Nye worked) couldn’t get out of the hanger, much less fly around the world. But, bear in mind, Bill Nye left engineering 31 years ago, to pursue a comedian career. Then he created a public television science-education show for children that was premised on a truly novel concept: “Mr. Wizard (Don Herbert) marries Pee Wee Herman.” As a fan of Don Herbert in the early 60s, I don’t think he would have joined up with Pee Wee. Television science for youngsters took a major down step with Bill Nye.

      Also, dozens of NASA engineers, who sent us into space, and landed men on the moon, are Catastrophic Man-Mad Climate Change skeptics (aka “deniers”). Remember, the issue of Anthropogenic climate change does not require wholesale revamping of our economy if it is not Catastrophic.

    • Dave Nesbitt

      OK. I will since you insist. Did you even read the article. 75% of the temperature change in the 100 year period from 1890 to 1990 occurred before WWII. Only 0.11 degrees of temperature increase happened after WWII when most of man’s CO2 production occurred. Therefore, logically, CO2 does not drive temperature change.

      Also temperatures have not increased since 1998. What did Al Gore’s et al models say would happen? No polar ice caps by 2013? Why don’t you bring that up?

      No. The science IS settled. CO2 does not drive climate change.

      • Timothy Horton

        Did you even read the article. 75% of the temperature change in the 100 year period from 1890 to 1990 occurred before WWII. Only 0.11 degrees of temperature increase happened after WWII when most of man’s CO2 production occurred.

        I don’t know where that claim came from but it’s simply false. The global temperature anomaly has risen almost 0.6 deg C since the end of WW2.

        Here is a chart of the actual global temperature anomaly from 1885 – 2010. There was a huge bump during the war as industry everywhere was in high war production, then a drop when the war ended, then a slow rise gradually ramping back up as production returned and things got back to normal, then an increase in the rate of rise from around 1975 onward.

        https://ourchangingclimate(DOT)files(DOT)wordpress(DOT)com/2010/03/global_temp_yearly_p1_smthbin11_2(DOT)png

        • Dave Nesbitt

          Ah another ignorant mind controlled slave puts in his 3 cents.

          • Timothy Horton

            I see Dave Nesbitt is another denier clown too lazy/stupid/both to deal with the actual data. No brains no headaches, eh Nesbitt?

          • J. Stil

            Yeah, Dave, those are my exact thoughts on everything you have contributed to the discussion thus far.

  • Dave Nesbitt

    I simply cannot stand it when you science deniers keep telling the truth. Please stop now. The science is settled. Man causes climate change whether the Sun likes it or not.

    • J. Stil

      Bibles and religious contrarians have been around for thousands of years and man was only able to progress up to heliocentrism by the 16th century. In just 100 years, scientific curiosity freed by secularism has given us rocketry, the space between galaxies, special relativity, and an understanding of nuclear energy and cosmic background radiation. We have developed computing and radar and a ever-increasing awareness of what composes our genetic material.

      These breakthroughs did not come about because the Christian God willed them into our minds. It was the freedom of knowledge and determination of will which had been set free from the limitations of backward religious dogma. Reintroducing these sort of strict theocratic approaches to cosmology and natural science will only set our species back.

      • Dave Nesbitt

        J, you’re just stupid.

        • J. Stil

          This coming from a guy who tried and succeeded in adding nothing to the discussion.

          Nice try, Dave, but your psychological projection is not fooling anyone.

  • J. Stil

    Bill Nye is not the only Cornell graduate to be hired by Boeing and later create a stir.

    If you find any credibility in Carl Sagan’s word, know that Bill Nye had at least one class with Professor Sagan.

Inspiration
When It Looks Like We’re Getting Nowhere
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us