Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


A Seattle institute defends creationism

September 2, 2012 @ 7:49 am (Updated: 9:29 am - 9/2/12 )

Earth"How can you possibly believe God created Adam and Eve and the world in six days?"

That question, with a disapproving head shake, and follow up comment, "I can't believe 46 percent of Americans believed in creationism" according to a Gallup poll echoed through the week.

The discussion was in response to a video which has now had 3.4 million views.

Bill Nye, a former Boeing engineer better known to kids as the "Science Guy," says parents can believe creationism if they want but don't teach it to kids because "we need scientific literate taxpayers and voters for the future."

The Discovery Institute comes to the defense of those who believe the Bible's account of how the world came to be.

The Seattle-based institute is a non-profit public policy think tank best known for its advocacy of intelligent design.

They support teaching creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside more accepted scientific theories.

The following article was written by Casey Luskin, an attorney with graduate degrees in both science and law. He is the Discovery Institute's research coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture.

"Bill Nye's most recent comments are noteworthy because he articulates the intolerant position of many evolutionists towards skeptics. He tries to scapegoat Darwin-skeptics for many problems in society in order to justify taking away people's freedom to teach kids about challenges to evolution.

The scapegoating begins when Nye says, "When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in it [evolution], that holds everybody back." He says that those who "deny evolution" have a worldview that "becomes crazy."

Nye then defines scientific literacy as demanding acceptance of evolution, and would remove from parents the freedom to teach their kids about problems with evolution:

"And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems."

Of course Darwin-skeptics don't "deny" that evolution occurs in some forms. And of course engineers don't use unguided evolution to build things -- they use intelligent design. And intelligent design is pretty useful in advancing scientific knowledge. Also, one recalls that engineers often find that nature, which supposedly wasn't designed, works better than our designed technology. But never mind all that. The point here is to highlight Nye's argument for intolerance, which has three parts: (1) Accepting evolution is the definition of scientific literacy, (2) People who "deny evolution" hinder the progress of society, and therefore (3) Parents should not teach their kids to doubt evolution. It's unfortunate that Nye is so intolerant that he would discourage parents from teaching their kids about their own beliefs, whatever they may be.

Since Nye cares so much about kids, would he prevent kids from learning about the Altenberg 16, a group of leading scientists who convened in Austria in 2008 to discuss shortcomings in the neo-Darwinian paradigm? Should kids not know about Thomas Nagel, a leading atheist philosopher who just wrote a book arguing that "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"? Should kids not understand that just two months ago a leading scientist in the journal Nature stated that new discoveries about RNA are "are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree"?

What's concerning is that Nye represents an increasingly prevalent view among materialists -- one that hopes to restrict freedom of expression for skeptics of Darwinian evolution. And I'm not just talking about the standard NCSE-style intolerance which opposes teaching about scientific views that challenge Darwinism in schools. I'm talking about Nye's unwillingness to endorse parents' rights to inculcate in their own children their doubts about Darwin. It's scary to think what the world would look like if these people had their way. Meanwhile, many in the scientific community continues to criticize the Darwinian paradigm.

Bill Nye is welcome to believe and say whatever he wants about evolution. But perhaps Nye has some catching up to do, both in his scientific understanding of the current status of Darwinian evolution, and his commitment to liberal values like freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, and parental rights."

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

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 (44)


  • Add A Comment

  • cdbtx wrote...
    Very good article
    September 2, 2012 8:08 am
    which articulates the intolerance and narcissistic ideology of Nye. One of the things I found in my early career as an engineer and why I was able to develop and design better products than my college educated counter parts was - since I lack the "College Education", I never had specific ideas and limitations drilled into my head.

    Often when my co-workers were presented a problem they immediately responded with a no, it can't be done or that it would cost millions.

    Another point that sadly Nye exemplifies - Robert Aurdery an anthropologist back in the 70's through made a shocking yet true statement. He said that people easily embrace and accept the laws of physics yet just a quickly deny the laws of Human Nature.

    Nye fits that mold. No amount of Physiciatric treatment or drugs will change a persons actions with regards to human nature - yet, religious tenants for 3,000 years understood human nature and offered solutions.

    Personally - I suspect that Nye simply feels threatened by views that conflict with his own - "Territorial Imperative" as Aurdrey has defined.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DJFavorite wrote...
    They defend it, but didn't go far enough
    September 2, 2012 8:09 am
    People are questioning their belief in Creationism primarily on the whole 'created in 6 days' issue. They don't explain that. When there is scientific proof that earth is millions of years old, that dinosaurs did not live with humans. They don't answer those questions. They talk about 'intelligent design' isn't that a belief that combines the creation story with scientific facts? Do they believe in the literal '6 days' or the scientific facts that it took millions of years? To me, this doesn't answer any of my questions. It doesn't defend it at all to me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    "intelligent design" is merely a way to define as 'magic' those things we don't yet understand.
    September 3, 2012 6:32 am
    Yes, Intelligent design (aka creationism) is nothing more than an attempt to assign 'Godly magic' to things we don't yet understand. Using the exact same logic that the intelligent design folks use, if aliens came to this planet and showed us technology that was so advanced that it didn't resemble anything we can even dream of today - nor could we break it down into it's individual parts, the 'intelligent design' logic would have to deem it 'created by God' even though it's evident that aliens made it. I believe in God, and I believe that God was that 'spark' that science still can't (and probably never will be able to) explain - the 'spark' that caused life to begin in all. I also believe that evolution as we know it is true. Granted, future discoveries can change what we think evolution is, but that's the way theories work - when actual evidence comes to light, the theory is adjusted to fit the new evidence.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Boingo wrote...
    Oh please ...
    September 2, 2012 12:38 pm
    Casey Luskin is a fool ... assertions without evidence requires no further rebuttal
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Daddy Dennis wrote...
    Good stuff.
    September 2, 2012 4:30 pm
    God bless The Discovery Institute.

    Bill is no longer satisfied with being a scientist. He wants to be a priest. He wants to think science has debunked God because it makes his chest puff out.

    Anyone who wants to know why guys in white coats seem drawn to this type of attack on faith, read "The End of Science" by Horgan. He is the former senior editor of Scientific American and an agnostic. He reveals truths like "data deluge" and "pockets of deceit". He shows you how peer review has been corrupted. It lets you rip the white coats off of guys like Bill and see their real uniform.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    I love it
    September 2, 2012 4:42 pm
    When people like Bill Nye, who has no children, tell we parents what we need to teach our children based on his expertise....LOL! Especially when he's half comedian half scientist. Hope this helped launch your new TV Show Sci-Guy! I think you may have shot you big mouth in the foot!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth....
    September 2, 2012 4:50 pm
    God also created the gift of poetry, and bestowed it upon man.

    Man wrote a poem, called "Genesis", the poem describes metaphorically pretty much the same sequence of events that modern scientists concur brought us to the present state. Nobody should get hung up too much on the number of "days" listed for accomplishing things. In the cosmic sense, there is no such thing as time. At the edge of the universe, it's still the very first moment of Creation. Genesis says, "God said let there be light (or energy) as the first step in creating the universe. Science says, "There was a big bang." Yup, right after God said, "let there be light," there was a big bang. :-)

    The Hebrew translation of the word "Adam" is not the name of an individual person, but "man" or maybe more accurately "mankind". What type of "scientists" overlook facts like that when they scoff that "all of humanity could not be descended for one man and one woman"?

    In a great book called "Rocks of Ages", best-selling author Stephen Jay Gould makes a succinct case for resolving the "conflict between science and religion" by choosing "both". Gould writes that in order to be a total person, one must be capable of both rational inquiry (science) as well as cultivating a spiritual life (religion).

    Evolutionists and Creationists are using two different frames of reference to describe the same process; and eventually more of them will come to realize it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    @ Chuck Gould
    September 2, 2012 5:48 pm
    Touche'! Great Post!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The King's Son wrote...
    @Chuck Gould
    September 2, 2012 6:41 pm
    And that's an even sillier thing to say. Nobody who actually studies the Bible without a preconceived notion of what they are hoping to find will ever come to that conclusion. There is no view even close to the one you have outlined, and there have been many, which has withstood the scrutiny of serious scholars.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Derrol_o wrote...
    Chuck
    September 2, 2012 7:05 pm
    How do you explain Genesis 1:26? That one verse, if no other, is what makes a lot of people think the book of Genesis is at odds with science concerning evolution. Remember too that the Bible, whether Genesis was written metaphorically or not, always deals in abolutes concerning both morals and truths. And it is uncompromising when it comes to stuff like creation, the origin of man, salvation. From an intellectual point of view evolution makes total sense. The way I see it, everything about the universe is about constant change. Always expanding, always accelerating the expansion, formation of galaxies, new stars, planets, the death of old stars, constant change on earth with plate tectonics, and on and on and on. Give anything enough time and it'll change, guaranteed. So it stands to reason that all life is in a constant state of flux too right? But not so fast, if you believe or want to believe in the Bible, which by the way will never be comprehended by intellectual means like the physical universe is. Genesis 1:26: Let us make man in our image and after our likeness. If that was God's intent then we cannot be evolving, unless either God is a monkey or God himself is subject to the evolutionary process along with us. Just wanted to get some feedback on that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • daisydog wrote...
    This is how I 'Splain it....
    September 3, 2012 4:37 am
    It's called "Comical fiction".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Genesis 1:26 -
    September 3, 2012 6:07 am
    How about: 'Let Us give this otherwise intelligent creature a Soul that he may be as one of us - a creature of the Cosmos, not just of Earth.'

    Remember, God (and the Angles) was attempting to explain to simple goat herders the wonders of the world and their own existence. The stories needed to be greatly simplified and understandable. ... "In Our own image.." need not be a PHYSICAL image.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    @ Chuck - EXCELLENT
    September 3, 2012 5:53 am
    John Paul II said the same thing. But of course no one in the science community even listened.

    There IS no conflict if reason prevails - on both sides.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Milred wrote...
    Boingo nails it....
    September 2, 2012 5:09 pm
    The Discovery Institute had every opportunity to defend creation science in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District case and failed to show up. During the trial, assertions made by Michael Behe, about irreducible complexity, one of the major tenants of creation science, was destroyed by Kenneth Miller and his team. Even more embarrassing is that during this same trial, Behe admitted that astrology was a science. Nye was right.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • demo wrote...
    Hey, Bill
    September 2, 2012 5:20 pm
    Don't you just love these narrow minded creationists? It's my way or the highway. They have no tolerance of you being able to think for yourself. I'm with you all the way.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Nye doesn't know history...
    September 2, 2012 5:33 pm
    or he'd realize the science was created and established by people who believed in creationism. They thought that if their is a creator, then there is order to the creation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • hedujg26 wrote...
    No, science was not create dby creationists.....
    September 2, 2012 6:15 pm
    It was created by people who wanted answers to questions they had. They wanted proof of their answers. They wanted to know why something was the way it was. they didn't accept the idea that because they don't know or understand something yet, it must be a force beyond understanding. You can't use rational thinking to explain creationism, because it doesn't require it. It is the opposite of science. Science requires questions asked and worked towards a provable answer. Creation has an answer which creations accept because they "feel" that the answer is beyond anyone understanding. You can't generate an acceptable hypothesis through the lack of information. But creationists do exactly that. the difference between me and Nye is I don't give a crap what people want to believe in their faith. You can believe in your God, I salute you, have a nice day, walk a straight line. Thats the beauty of Faith, you don't need proof. But don't try to use science to prove your Faith, your religion, because science don't use faith to prove itself. They are two seperate things.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The King's Son wrote...
    @hedujg26
    September 2, 2012 6:38 pm
    lol That's a silly and ignorant thing to say. Even the quickest of google searches will reveal that everything you just said isn't true. There are many, many leading scientists over the centuries who believed in God and wanted to discover more about the world He created.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    hedujg.....science has yet to be proven right about much of anything
    September 2, 2012 6:49 pm
    Scientists are a lot like politicians.They stake out an opinion, and then round up all the evidence they can find to support that particular opinion, or theory.

    Wasn't that long ago that medical scientists thought that a long list of ailments could be cured by removing some blood from the body.

    Wasn't that long ago that physicists thought the atom was the smallest particle.

    When I was a kid, scientists still taught us that matter existed independently from energy (quantum theory has debunked that).

    As surely as each of these discoveries was announced, and "proven true" by the Scientific Method, they will soon enough be abandoned for an updated or revised version of the truth.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • nevetssnikpoh wrote...
    Newton
    September 2, 2012 6:37 pm
    Isaac Newton was arguably the greatest scientist, ever. He believed in a Creator God. Who wants to call him ignorant and narrow minded stifling mankind's intelligence growth?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }