Education | Evangelical Christians | Evangelicals | Religion | Science

Creation Museum 'Science Guys' Rebut Bill Nye: VIDEO


On Thursday, Andrew posted an excellent "Big Think" video from Bill Nye, in which the scientist and educator riffed expertly on evolution via natural selection, and suggested that warping kids' worldviews with creationism amounts to a kind of child abuse.

The vid's gone viral, and now Ken Ham and the folks at the Creation Museum have issued a rebuttal. The two people talking in the video are supposed to be scientists, but they give up the game at the 2:10 mark. See how AFTER THE JUMP ... 



Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Since we have zero original copies of any of the books of the Bible and we know that the oldest books we do have were copies of copies of copies that are filled with errors and deliberate alterations, that book is not only an unreliable history it is an unreliable source for understanding the history of Christianity.

    And this notion that the Bible is inerrant is, I believe, an early 20th century concept that would have been deemed laughable by the Christians who preceded these people.

    Posted by: Bible = inaccurate | Sep 1, 2012 2:41:24 PM

  2. may these evolution-denying Creationists collectively get kicked between the legs and never breed.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Sep 1, 2012 2:44:35 PM

  3. The Bible was written by men. If it wasn't, then God can reveal Himself to me and inform me otherwise.

    Meanwhile, this video is a crock of sh!t.

    Posted by: Cinesnatch | Sep 1, 2012 2:52:55 PM

  4. I can't with these basic bitches.

    Posted by: Gabriel | Sep 1, 2012 2:53:50 PM

  5. Thanx Vint

    Posted by: say what | Sep 1, 2012 2:58:13 PM

  6. i must be dumb, i don't even know what they were talking about

    Posted by: luke | Sep 1, 2012 3:06:23 PM

  7. There sure are uneducated PHD holders which slipped through the system. We all know G.W. Bush has an Ivy League degree. It is also possible that an educated person can go through some period of insanity.

    Posted by: simon | Sep 1, 2012 3:16:53 PM

  8. The creationists actually believe that the men who wrote Genesis etc were giving "eye witness accounts of creation". These are the same people who taught that diseases are caused by evil spirits. Drive out the evil spirits and the person is cured. Unfortunately, even the holy man, Jesus was a believer in such nonsense. So much for his "divinity".

    Posted by: andrew | Sep 1, 2012 3:46:54 PM

  9. I want to know who the "eyewitness" was to creation? It sure as heck wasn't Adam, who was created on the 6th Day, after everything else was finished. Nor was it Moses, who is credited with writing Genesis and was born multiple generations later than Adam.

    Posted by: Taylor | Sep 1, 2012 3:54:48 PM

  10. I'm finding it difficult to believe that, with a Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics, Dr Purdom could credibly make the statement that there is no known mechanism by which an organism can increase its genetic information to acquire new traits / go from simple to complex. Many such mechanisms exist, including "whole genome duplication" (exactly what it sounds like, and quite common in plants) to duplication of single chromosomes or smaller parts of a chromosome, insertions and deletions both large and small, mobile genetic elements, viruses that insert themselves into a genome and alter gene expression nearby... there are dozens of known mechanisms by which a genome can change across generations, and if you took two people off the street and sequenced their whole DNA content to make comparisons, you would very likely be able to pull out examples of at least the smaller insertions and deletions that are less likely to be toxic. The genome is *not* actually very stable at all: that's why we get things like Down's Syndrome and Huntington's disease, the genetic mechanisms of which are very well understood. The same processes that lead to those diseases can also lead to less harmful / neutral changes which are actually beneficial. Yes, we can observe evolution in action, including in humans.

    Not to be petty, but I don't see any "first author" papers by her in PubMed, the search engine for scientific research papers, although I can find a few "middle author" papers where she most likely contributed work but didn't write the paper or do the majority of the work. Most programs won't let you get your doctorate without having a first author paper... so God only knows how she got her PhD. But she certainly isn't putting that education to good use, if she's willfully ignoring actual concrete evidence of genetic evolution.

    Posted by: Kevin | Sep 1, 2012 5:33:14 PM

  11. Some of you are wondering what the big reveal is supposed to be at the 2:10 mark. Allow me to break it down for you.

    Dr. Georgia Purdom, the molecular geneticist, states the following: "Their history of how they got here (they being fossils and stars) really depends upon a "WORLD VIEW."

    World view is defined by Wikipedia, which is as good a definition as any out there says it "is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics."

    That is part of the reveal, preceded by Dr. Purdom's assertion that Historical Science, under which auspices both “Creationism” and “Evolution” fall, neither of which, she says “ . . . can be tested, observed, and repeated.” Dr. Purdom is being clever here, or thinks she is. She has put “Evolution” on the same footing as “Creationism” in her statement, so she feels she is being quite reasonable in her refutation of evolution, especially since she claims to teach both to her daughter.

    It is not unlike the sort of “Fair and Balanced” spin one gets watching Fox news. Going back to the key words, “World View” we now know that whatever Dr. Purdom is going to say will not be scientific, rather philosophical, subjective, and argumentative for the sake of argument.

    "Do we start with man's ideas about the past who wasn’t here during this “supposed” billions of years of Earth history . . . ,” she continues, “ . . . or do we start with the bible, the written revelation of the EYEWITNESS account of the Eternal God who created it all.”

    The rest of the video is superfluous, especially Dr. Purdom’s suggestion that “ . . . rather than being inconsistent, as Bill Nye states, OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE confirms the literal history in Genesis” because she does not list the observations that were made to support Genesis, nor how they were “tested” and “repeated.” And why would she? She feels she has constructed an automatic out in her argument by categorizing creationism under the auspices of HISTORICAL SCIENCE . . . but there is the rub. Yes? Because she has already stated that Historical Science CANNOT be OBSERVED, TESTED, and REPEATED. But she is undeterred by the now glaring contradiction of her argument because she has, what? Why an “EYEWITNESS account of the Eternal God who created it all!”

    Amazing! Yes? Amazing if one does not ask the next logical and fair question(s), which the type of religious Dr. Purdom and her colleague, biologist, Dr. David Menton personify, assume will not be asked, or if asked become incensed with the enquirer, accusing him/her that their question(s) are motivated by a blind refusal to accept their (the Creationists) WORLD VIEW, the most obvious of those questions being: Who is this eyewitness? Can they produce him/her to give testimony? And assuming (quite reasonably I would say) that he/she is of the finite species, the hu-man, how does the finite comprehend and report on the infinite, and all the events that preceded him/her?

    The asking of these questions can only generate a subjective, non-productive, circular argument(s) encompassing philosophy, art, religion, literature, and a more tractable and finite history of man and his evolving relationship with philosophy, art, religion, and literature, and never once approach the scientific method.

    And that is the REVEAL, which is of course no reveal at all, but the same tiresome mantra of the religious that has historically been backed by violence and persecution to beat down, imprison, and even kill the intellectually curious:

    Do not ask questions. Think how we tell you to think. Do as you are told. If what you observe in the physical world contradicts our EYEWITNESS, ignore, and disregard, entirely, those observations. And STOP asking questions that challenge our World VIEW.

    Posted by: Ricco | Sep 1, 2012 6:13:01 PM

  12. These people can't deny evolution is observable. It's certainly observable in bacteria and protozoans, as well as viruses, and for that matter in any creature that has a short generational time. Moths in England evolved during the early Industrial Revolution from white to almost black so that they didn't stand out on soot-stained trees. That was well-documented. Around here in Southern California the Southern Pacific Rattlesnake is losing its rattles. Reason? They get killed (by people) if they make noise. Those with defective rattles survive to breed.
    Evolution is observed every day, and in more and more ways. When one realizes that a change in just one or two bases in DNA can result in profound changes and adaptations, and that DNA reproduction is good, but not perfect, in living organisms, it's silly to think that life has stood still.
    Both these people are employed by Answers In Genesis, so you already know where they are coming from. I daresay that the woman's kids have been taught a very flawed version of evolution.

    Posted by: cbhermey | Sep 1, 2012 6:13:15 PM

  13. Looking for so-called "evidence" to support her already arrived at belief system makes her moist. She's a religeous zealot...figured out what the result is via that belief system and conjures up "evidence" to support her result.
    I'm sure she could locate a bowling alley in the sky somewhere to support her belief that thunder is god's way of getting our attention for something she knows he doesn't like. He's already communicated to her in a dream that's his now she just needs to locate that damn bowling alley. I have no doubt she'll find it.

    Posted by: PAUL B. | Sep 1, 2012 6:27:18 PM

  14. Stupid. Dogmatic. Typical.

    Posted by: Kyle M. Sullivan | Sep 1, 2012 6:27:52 PM

  15. @ PAUL B . . . LOL . . . LOVED your bowling alley in the sky metaphor!!

    Posted by: Ricco | Sep 1, 2012 6:31:59 PM

  16. That hairstyle is proof that there is no God.

    Posted by: Gry | Sep 1, 2012 6:41:35 PM

  17. The airhead invoked her worthless Bible. Scientists don't do that.

    Unfortunately her customers (million of Christian retards) think it's perfectly OK to invoke supernatural magic to solve scientific problems.

    Posted by: Human Ape | Sep 1, 2012 7:53:09 PM

  18. Creationism appeals to the simple minded who don't want to be challenge by actually thinking.

    Posted by: jaragon | Sep 1, 2012 8:56:08 PM

  19. So mankind started with Adam and Eve and their sons having sex with their sisters to produce more children?

    The flood. Noah's family is the only ones that survived so his son's had sex with their sisters to produce more children?

    And God blessed this?

    Posted by: Runningusa | Sep 1, 2012 9:14:33 PM

  20. Reading the comments in this tiny liberal echo chamber is amusing to say the least. You people are aware, aren't you, that Bill Nye is not a scientist either; he merely PLAYS one on TV. His highest EARNED degree is a bachelor's. (I'm ignoring honorary degrees, which are objectively worthless.) He has never published in a peer-reviewed journal. He has never done professional research.

    Why aren't you applying the same standards to your guy as to these two creationists? If it doesn't bother you that Nye isn't really a professional scientist, why should it bother you that these two aren't? In fact, it is utterly irrelevant in both cases. We don't need to resort to ad hominem fallacies when we can simply listen to what someone is saying and weigh the truth of it directly.

    While you're watching this video, what are you doing about the things these two non-scientists are saying that happen to be true, like evolution theory being essentially irrelevant to modern PRODUCTIVE biological research? That is quite factual. You don't have to believe in Darwin to create medicines, to isolate enzymes, to map genomes.

    Believe it or not, you can tell your kids there's a Santa Claus and they can still grow up to be effective scientists. What's it to you? You are being USED to further someone else's agenda. These people's beliefs shouldn't bother you much more than somebody's favorite color not matching yours.

    Even IF it's silly, there's really not much harm in it. Most creationists don't grow up to be stupid or violent any more than most atheists do. Some do on each side, but we can see clearly that there is no consistent causal relationship here. You want to talk about people retaining superstitions? What about YOUR superstition that religious people are stupid and dangerous. In ALMOST all cases, they are clearly not.

    Another comment I must make that will not make me popular is that Nye blathers about the implication that teaching kids creationism is child abuse while supporting a political party that literally murders millions of babies still in the womb. I think his priorities are out of order if he's so worried about children. It just needs to be said.

    The woman in the video claims Genesis is literally true and I personally cannot agree with that. I have examined this book in detail and find the story it outlines to be inconsistent with a few very solid facts; HOWEVER, her statement that our worldview affects our interpretation of unknowns is absolutely correct.

    How do you liberals reconcile the fact that a still-significant fraction of cosmologists DON'T believe in the Big Bang / Inflationary Universe? Are those Tired Light theorists just more "zealots" to you? What about the anthropologists who could not confirm the finding that we have Neanderthal DNA? What about the String Theorists who hold opposing views from each other? We all put our personal beliefs into our interpretation of the unknown--ALL of us!--because we do not have enough information to reach a solid conclusion. Truth is not a popularity vote. We don't establish facts by "consensus." (And you should be grateful for this.)

    Bill Nye's own personal beliefs about "science" are merely a sampling of the paradigms he happens to live under. So many of the things science asserts right now will be shown false in the future, even if evolution happens to not be one of them.

    If you're still reading, I have one last point to make that you really ought to sit down and think about: I consider it pathetic that there is a group of people adamantly and viciously defending the word of a few sacred books taken at face value for established truth along with the authoritative assurances of a few gurus, without checking the facts for themselves, and I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU EVOLUTIONISTS AS MUCH AS THE CREATIONISTS. The vast majority of you have never personally investigated fossil evidence directly to confirm the assertions of evolution theory. You have put your FAITH in "experts" you idolize and textbooks you zealously worship. Confirming evolution theory for yourself by direct evidence is an extensive, time-consuming, complicated task and please don't lie about the fact that essentially zero of you have even tried.

    You look like hypocrites when you denounce others' blind faith in authority while ignoring your own.

    Posted by: Dissenter | Sep 1, 2012 10:02:16 PM

  21. We are talking evolution here. Why are you babbling about string theory and Big Bang?

    Posted by: simon | Sep 1, 2012 10:17:00 PM

  22. Some ignorant people will say things like "Christ is my king," not realizing what they are saying is "the concept of Christ that was constructed by the leaders of the church I pledge my allegiance to is my king"

    these posts by Bill Nye and these mental filth peddlers inspired me to draft an essay I'm so offended as a person of science

    Posted by: MaddM@ | Sep 1, 2012 10:18:07 PM

  23. MaddM

    Posted by: simon | Sep 1, 2012 10:25:43 PM

  24. Creationism = primitive biblical nonsense.

    Posted by: andrew | Sep 1, 2012 11:37:23 PM

  25. Dissenter, I can't speak for others who, like myself, perceive evolution to be factual, but selection relative to the perpetuation of plants and animals occurs before our very eyes. Farmers do it daily.

    The phenomenon of some variations between organisms promoting survival and thus persistence of a genetic line, and some not, also feels to me like plain common sense.

    So I hardly perceive it as "blind faith in authority" that when I personally first heard about Darwin's research and suppositions about natural selection, evolution, and "the origin of species," and, relatedly, that the age of the earth had been extremely underestimated, that it just made a ton of sense. It was not like "oh, I am just going to arbitrarily take on this belief system." It was, instead: Well, that fits things I've *personally* observed, about organisms, reproduction, and changes over time. (It also had nothing to with being or not being a "liberal.")

    (By the way, Dissenter, if you have an earnest aim to persuade -- rather than just vent -- I would drop phraseology like "you liberals." That's not the language of dialogue. It's also simply presumptious about your audience.)

    Finding sea lily fossils in a place far from an ocean as a kid also helped. I found Darwin's general explanation for what I found vastly more satisfying, and vastly more **interesting**, than something like "When He created the earth not more than 6,000 years ago, God sprinkled parts of the earth with things that look like sea lily segments but in rock form, for some reason or purpose that God may or may not choose to reveal."

    Posted by: Daly | Sep 1, 2012 11:57:18 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Famed Priest And Franciscan Friar Blames Kids For Catholic Abuse Scandals, Then Changes His Mind« «