Bill Nye 's Controversial Debate

“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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

“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 battle between the relationship of science and religion has always been a controversial topic in society. It has been a subject of study since the classical era from scientists, theologists, philosophers, and regular citizens. It is understandable that the perspective on culture and religion are unquestionably varied due to different geographical regions, but why are there so many heated debates regarding the global discussion and what is it that causes those controversies? Is it possible that there is more than two outlooks and theories? Jerome Lawrence and Robert E.Lee contrasts the two perspectives in Inherit the Wind by bringing back an historical and legendary trial. Matthew Harrison Brady, an established lawyer in America demonstrates his ideology in God. Addition to Mr. Brady, his arch nemesis, Henry Drummond, defends his morals by expressing his vision that evolution is where human come from.

Ken Ham is a Christian who established a creationist museum, he insisted the Earth still young. Ken Ham said: "Today, there is too much influence of the theory of evolution on children, we need to take the child back to the correct view of the world in this debate, and it is a good opportunity to let people know more about God, and the spread of the Gospel. "

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

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

The Arkansas trial raised discussions about the demarcation of science from nonscience. Towards the end of the trial Judge Overton justified his decision by providing five criteria, which stated the definition of science. Discussions arose which argued for and against these criterias. One of the philosophers that claimed that creation science was indeed science was Larry Laudan. Laudan expressed his disappointment towards the decision of the trial, and stated that the trial failed to recognise the falsifiable theories that creationists made. Gilkey and Ruse were a couple of the philosophers however, that agreed with the decision arguing that creation science failed to comply with the standards of science especially through its conclusion of an unexplainable divine creator. In this essay, I will discuss the arguments that aid the demarcation of science from nonscience, and ultimately conclude with an

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science should not be taught in public schools because it is not science. Opposing this view, in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan argues that Creation Science is science, but that it should not be taught in public schools because it is false. In this paper, I will argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science, but rather it is religion. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and briefly explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

Any point of contact with the scientific world in the 21st century will eventually lead one to the one of the most hotly contested topic in American education, that of evolution versus creationism. While the creationist point of view, as well as the evolutionary perspective, hosts a great variation of opinion amongst its supporters, Christianity is brought to the center stage time after time (Vuletic, 1994). Literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis’ account of creation falls contrary to the claims of the evolutionary paradigm (Vuletic, 1994). This then refutes the theory for some as ‘atheistic’, while many continue to claim the inability of science to explain metaphysical issues such as the existence of a deity, thus reconciling both perspectives (Vuletic, 1994). It is redundant then, to continue arguing in circles of the proof either side has for its claims. One must extrapolate other means of analyzing the situation.

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).