“If the Earth gets hit by an asteroid, it's game over. It's Control-Alt-Delete for civilization.”-Bill Nye. This is only one of the problems that former engineer Bill Nye has tried to solve. “Bill Nye the Science Guy” is a phrase you probably hear a lot thanks to his super catchy theme song, but don't just give him credit for that. He is also a modern day Renaissance man! His show however is only one of his many talents.
Scientists has proved many points on how this earth came to be and how life formed. They can show evidence through many years of research and hard work to prove religion wrong. But they don't want to prove religion wrong, they just want religious people to accept the fact that science does exist and it's true. In “Transcript of Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Debate” describes the “arrogance” of religious people and how science is believable though many years of research. As seen in the article Ken Ham would always deny the fact that science isn't real or true and would always result back to the bible. Ham focused too much on historical science. As Nye requested of Ham, present your model, make a prediction, and then let’s observe if the data supports. Both evolution and creation models do have a historical element, but both should also have a predictable observable element. It's like so sad that he believes only in the bible and not trusting science. Science plays a big role in society because of all the strange phenomenal it explains. Like, physics and how it is in our everyday life even if we don't notice it to what is real, what is practical, and how things work. It's true on how science has become a major part of our lives even if we don't believe in it. People who just believe in their religion and not science need to start giving it a chance because it's just so sad and arrogant. Evolution tells us, in detail, what happens over time to populations of organisms in a complex
I read Bill Nye’s book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. I chose the book because I was exploring evolutionary biology as a career path, and Bill Nye has always been close to heart, as I watched him on tv as a child. Nye discusses the umbrella topic of evolution, while relating to his career and life. Chapters 20 through 37 focuses on human genetics and evolution, drug resistance, genetically modified organisms, and astrobiology.
Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want
In recent years, the political and religious movement that sought to integrate theories competing with the theory of evolution into the curriculum of various schools in the US. The theory that was offered was the theory of “intelligent design”, which even though not explicitly religious, makes for a theory much more compatible with religion than evolution. The danger of this move was that it was trying to dismiss a legitimate scientific theory as just one among the existing theories – an equal rival in pursuit of true explanation. However, what the advocates of this measure were actually doing is to equate scientific theory with a vastly inferior narrative about the world. It was, therefore, necessary for an author like Coyne (2009) to
Robinson, in her essay, claims that while Creationism is owned by “Religious Right”, Darwinism is owned by “Irreligious Right”2. She writes that the differences between the two are meaningless and that the people who defend religion make religion seem foolish while the defenders of science attributed to objectivity. Many people believe that Creationism and Darwinism do not belong together and are about as similar as cats and dogs. Just as there are cat people and dog people, there are people who stick to one belief or the other in the creation versus evolution debate. Robinson disagrees, however, and says that Creationism is probably the best thing that has happened to Darwinism. Darwinism, she writes, is “the caricature of religion that has seemed to justify Darwinist contempt for the whole of religion”3.
On April 7, 2017, a colloquium was given by Dr. Ted Davis from Messiah College. It covered the controversy surrounding religion and science during the 1920s. At the beginning of his presentation, he presented and handed out some interesting primary sources. These primary sources were pamphlets commonly used in the 1920s to promote scientific reasoning (mainly evolution) and were written by some influential scholars and preachers of the time. He briefly discussed the Scopes Trial, which is probably the most famous example of science vs religion here in the US, and used it as a jumping off point for the history leading up to this trial. From here he began to discuss how World War I had put a negative connotation on evolution due to the social
Bill Nye believes that people began from evolution which is accepted universally among mainstreamed scientists. Evolution is the thought of humans starting from germs and then animals and later on to how we are today. Also that we all have descended from common ancestors and natural selection. Bill Nye is arguing against the Genesis creation, which is believed life originates from acts of “divine creation” taking from the bible. One argument that Bill Nye offers is that there would not be enough time, for the four thousand years creationists believe earth was created, for Noah's ark to be built and earth to create. For example, there are trees that are over five
For as long as mankind has had the curiosity to gaze at the stars, we have been constantly questioning our origin and place in the universe. From simple, yet elegant solutions (like our world being on the back of a large tortoise) to the more complex pantheons of gods and heavens, humanity’s dedication to classifying and comprehending our universe has enabled us to weave rich and complex mythologies and beliefs. However, in America today there are two prominent paradigms that are shaping how we see the world—Christian creationism and scientific evolution. These two schools of thought, like many other conflicting models of the universe and its creation, have fueled passions and incited spirited rivalries among its most ardent followers and fanatics, but, again like many other opposing beliefs, at the same time it is easy to see how they can be reconciled both within and without oneself. However, many scientists and theologians believe that one of the two is blasphemous and the other is gospel (or textbook) truth. For example, in Scott D Sampson’s essay Evoliteracy, (2006) Sampson denounces Christianity and pushes for everyone to learn the theory of Evolution instead of creationism. While he is correct in wanting a more educated populace, Christianity is not an inherently wrong construct. Similarly, many of those pushing for intelligent design have similarly decried the evolutionary theory as
“Rocks of Ages” is Stephen Jay Gould’s commentary on the conflict between secular scientists and religious believers who reject scientific theory when in it is disagreement with religious teachings about nature and origin of the natural world. Certain aspects of his argument hold true, but the application is impossible and still gives one magisteria a dominance over the other. While it is an accurate account of historical disagreements and critical views of well-known people, his argument is flawed by human nature. He repeatedly contradicts himself and maintains a bias in favor of scientific theory.
The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.
The relationship between religion and science is indubitably debated. Barbour describes four ways of viewing this relationship (conflict, independence, dialogue--religion explains what science cannot, and integration--religion and science overlap). Gould presents a case in which religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), that the two entities teach different things and therefore do not conflict. The subject of this essay is Worrall, who says that religion and science does conflict, and that genuine religious beliefs are incompatible with a proper scientific attitude. The former half of the essay will describe his argument, while the latter will present a criticism of his argument.
It would be an understatement to claim that the realms of faith and reason rarely conflict. Since the earliest days of scientific inquiry, these two spheres of thought have been locked in a vicious battle, only letting up as religion has gradually modernized to accommodate newer understandings of the universe. But, as is the nature of any age-old debate, the fires fueling this conflict have once again been fed, this time with the controversy surrounding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. The proponents of this alternative “theory” to the origins of life claim that they have been silenced by the Darwinian establishment and support integrating their ideas into the classroom through such means as textbook disclaimers or
In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.
Creationists, mistaking the uncertain in science for the unscientific, see the debate among evolutionists regarding how best to explain evolution as a sign of weakness. Scientists, on the other hand, see uncertainty as simply an inevitable element of scientific knowledge. They regard debates on fundamental theoretical issues as healthy and stimulating. Science, says evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, is "most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information may be explained in surprisingly new ways." Thus, through all the debate over evolutionary mechanisms biologists have not been led to doubt that evolution has occurred. "We are debating how it happened," says Gould (1983, p.256).