Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

Bill Nye the political guy

August 28, 2012 @ 2:07 pm (Updated: 4:14 pm - 8/28/12 )

Bill Nye, famed as "The Science Guy" is gaining lots of headlines for this video in which he laments disbelief in evolution in the United States. "Evolution" can be a tricky word. Sometimes it's used to mean the changing of an organism over time. Sometimes it is used to mean the changing of one organism into other organisms over time. And sometimes it's used more broadly to signify all of these things and a materialist worldview in which the universe around us was the result of processes that have nothing to do with any kind of intelligence but merely are.

I get the impression from the video that Mr. Nye is using "evolution" interchangeably to mean each of these things.

Clearly, Bill Nye cares about science and equally clearly, he has had a remarkable career making it fun and interesting to kids. But are the assertions he is making in this video scientific opinions or political opinions? Even if you accept that his view on evolution is correct, most of his assertions are political.

Let's take a look

1. Denial of evolution is unique to the United States.

Is it? Clearly not. There are plenty of people who deny a materialist view of the universe throughout the world. People disagree with evolution for different reasons as well. Some challenge it as a theory and believe that an examination of life shows complexity that suggests an intelligent design (for example, The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture). Others will challenge it based solely on religious texts (Creationism). In any case, it's clear that the United States is not unique in this matter.

2. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that (evolution), it holds everybody back, really.

Strangely, immediately after acknowledging that "we're the world's most advanced technological, "I mean, you could say Japan, but generally, the United States is where most of the innovations still happens," Nye makes the assertion that everybody is being held back. How is this so? If anything, religious belief was stronger earlier in our history, yet we are on the technological top. We continue to advance in engineering, medicine and science. How has that progress been "held back" by those who doubt "evolution" in any of its meanings? The Soviet Union was officially an atheist state and yet it lagged behind the more religious United States. Even today, Communist China discourages religious beliefs but is more famous for stealing technology that leading in it. So can you assert that "everybody" has been held back because of those who doubt evolution? If you can, let me know how because I do not see it.

 

3. "Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It's like, it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You're just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place."

By "evolution" here does he mean "things change over time" or the broader materialist world view here? Clearly, changes through mutations and genetics are fundamental to modern biology. But I get the impression that Nye is using a broader definition of evolution. Whether you would get the "wrong answer" seems to depend on more than a full embrace of evolutionary theory. People studying biology who believe in Intelligent Design, for example, may explore the complexities of life at the micro scale. Would their failure to subscribe to an all-encompassing definition of evolution mean they couldn't make observations about the inner workings of micro-organisms? I've spoken and worked with many people from and attended events of The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and I've never been under the impression that they were content somehow to just chalk life up to "mystery" and stop studying it.

I also recently interviewed Dr. Ben Carson, the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins and the first person to ever successfully separate conjoined twins who were connected at the skull. He does not embrace evolution, yet came up with a correct answer to the biological question he was facing and continues to study the brain with wonder and enthusiasm.

4.The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.

Plenty of people who do not fully embrace evolution seem to live fulfilled, meaningful, and hopeful lives. Does that mean they live life through a "crazy" prism? I don't think so. You might argue it's incomplete or blurry, but clearly they've got some things right. For many, just adding Sagan's "billions and billions" of years is not a satisfactory explanation for "Why?"

5.1 And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine...

So those who deny evolution live in a world that's "completely inconsistent with everything we observe?" EVERYTHING? Really? Some people see the universe and see the hand of God. Some see intelligence inherent in DNA coding. Some don't. But I'm not sure they're living in a world "completely inconsistent" with the observable universe. Human behavior suggests there is a benefit to religious beliefs--might that be something that gives pause as to why some might have faith?

5.2 ...but don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that canâ€"we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

The assertion here is only if children fully embrace materialist evolutionary theory can they be good voters and taxpayers and successful engineers and people who "solve problems." As I mentioned earlier, Dr. Ben Carson "solved problems" that were very complex-- is he the wrong kind of American? I'm guessing a significant number of engineers around the United States who have worked on our most complicated challenges did not fully subscribe to evolutionary theory. I've spoken with engineers from NASA and Boeing that were believers and yet, they solved great problems. Nye acknowledges that America is the worlds technological innovator, yet we got this way AS a religious nation. So how is it we have been held back?

Are the children of religious voters less likely to do well? Less likely to go to college? Less likely to "build stuff" or solve problems? Less likely to vote? Less likely to support ethical medical research or space exploration? If so, I've not seen the evidence of it.

Nye might be embarrassed about the beliefs of others and may wish to convince them to change. He seems sincere in this. But if so, he should consider focusing on his arguments instead of asserting the worthlessness of those who disagree with his worldview. Nye usually does better. And those he disagrees with deserve better.

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (17)


  • Add A Comment

  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    Interesting... So it's ok for a right wing person to spew inaccuracies, but how dare a liberal do it?
    August 28, 2012 1:15 pm
    Interesting perspective to take there Boze.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Poser sgt.
    August 28, 2012 1:40 pm
    Why is in NOT okay for any American to criticize and left winger on anything and not have people like you jump all over them?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Intelligent Design is
    August 28, 2012 2:47 pm
    "God did it, no more questions allowed." If it is not that, it is nothing at all.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Del162 wrote...
    "Science Guy" is ironic nickname like "Tiny" for big guys
    August 28, 2012 3:23 pm
    Bill Nye has a history of being un-scientific, check out Anthony Watts critique of a Bill Nye interview: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/30/bill-nye-is-the-anti-science-guy-when-it-comes-to-global-warming-and-hurricanes/ Its funny when actors talk as if they are an authority on a topic just because they play one on TV.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DoctorB wrote...
    Bill Nye
    August 28, 2012 3:27 pm
    Bill Nye couldn't be more off-base. I have an advanced degree in Biology and a Medical degree. Having been trained in scientific thought and reason, I find evolution to have many problems and hold Divine intervention to be a reasonable and sound alternative. Regardless of one's views, America is the world's leader in science because of our ability to accept and analyze competing views, not just dismiss them. This is why most people thought the world was flat for thousands of years. Mr. Nye needs to review the basic principles of scientific reasoning, before making comments that reflect more his personal or political leanings. As for me, I will teach my children all sides of the issue and let them decide for themselves.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    @DoctorB
    August 28, 2012 6:29 pm
    Thank you for that excellent, tolerant and absolutely perfect response. I am truly sad that Bill Nye seems to feel his Political ideology and psuedo-celebrity arrogance gives him the right to spew his opinion into the lives of our children. I thought someone in an earlier post said it just right: "Liberals want everyone to believe as they do. Conservatives allow everyone to choose their beliefs. Liberals "Push" their ideas on everyone, while conservatives only present ideas that they hope others will believe in. I choose to be conservative. I allow others to make their own choices. I ask that we all teach as many things as possible and not shut out things we don't personally believe in. It is no longer teaching when we present only one view. It is programming".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @maplefish
    August 29, 2012 11:08 am
    Carl Sagan wrote a book called "The Demon Haunted world." Conservatives should read it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    DoctorB
    August 28, 2012 7:11 pm
    Please point me to any published work in any reputable scientific journal where in the results and conclusion the authors included the phrase "divine intervention".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    "Conservatives allow everyone to choose their beliefs."
    August 28, 2012 7:21 pm
    That's why I call them Republitards, because when they say things like "airplanes are carried by angels" instead of being told about the scientific concept of flight dynamics, they are told "you are right because we conservatives allow you to choose your beliefs".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    I don't expect to get any intelligent answers from DoctorB
    August 28, 2012 8:37 pm
    Afterall, DoctorB did write, "America is the world's leader in science because of our ability to accept and analyze competing views, not just dismiss them. This is why most people thought the world was flat for thousands of years."
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • davima wrote...
    Just what I need ...
    August 28, 2012 9:01 pm
    Another celebritard with no kids telling me how to raise mine. Next ...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    Dear Mr. Nye ...
    August 29, 2012 12:10 am

    "If you try to ignore [deep time, evolution, et al.] ... your worldview becomes ... crazy ... just untenable ..."

    Really, Mr. Nye ... really? And what if you ignore the fact that a denial of a supernatural creator necessitates that you ultimately reject the conservation of mass and the laws of thermodynamics? What then, huh? Does that make you crazy, untenable, inconsistent? If one's beliefs about the origins of the universe are the only measure of one's sanity, then I guess the answer is "yes." If you don't believe in a creator, you have to keep a straight face while attempting to explain how everything came from nothing. Now whose world becomes "fantastically complicated"?

    "Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science ... in all of biology."

    Okay, given that belief of yours, Mr. Nye, I can understand why you think it's important for biologists to believe in biological evolution. But where do you get off making the quantum leap of logic from biology to "voters and taxpayers ... [and] engineers that can build stuff, solve problems"? You're taking a subjective premise that might be tenable in a limited context, and extrapolating that premise to blanket the rest of life. What if I were to say that I refused to drive over a bridge designed by an atheist, since his mistaken belief about the origins of the universe obviously rendered him incapable of "building stuff"? What then, huh? I'll tell you what: you'd call me a paranoid, ideological bigot - and rightly so. The idea that one's views on "evolution" determine one's intelligence, capacity for achievement, or usefulness to society is ludicrous on its face. A lack of belief in evolution certainly didn't "hold back" Mendel, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, or Newton, just as a rejection of God didn't bequeath Watson, Crick, Nobel, or Oppenheimer with some kind of scientific advantage.

    The problem with people like you, Mr. Nye, is that you think your title of "scientist" gives you the right to speak with the voice of God. While normal people would happily admit to the elements of faith inherent in their worldviews, you slouch back in your chair, roll your eyes, and bemoan what a "hard thing" it is to have to deal with the rest of us neanderthals who think it might just be possible that not everything happened the way you say it did. Your arrogance is nauseating.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }