The host of a popular 1990s TV show for children says a Tennessee law that protects teachers who allow students to question evolution and promote creationism hurts science education and damages technical innovation in this country.
The Associated Press reported last week that Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer and star of “Bill Nye: The Science Guy,” has posted a video on the Internet urging parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children.
Creationists who believe the stories of the Old Testament are a historical fact argue the world was created by God just a few thousand years ago.
“The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old,” Nye told the AP. “It’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.”
Millions of Americans, however, do believe in creationism. According to a Gallup poll conducted in June, 46 percent of Americans believe in creationism.
“If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate,” Nye said.
He said he was troubled by lawmakers and school board members in some states who insist on presenting Bible stories in class as an alternative to teaching evolution. Tennessee passed a law earlier this year that protects teachers who let students criticize evolution and other scientific theories. The legislation was ridiculed by critics as a “monkey bill” that attacks evolution.
That’s in reference to the famous Scopes “monkey trial” held in Tennessee in 1925, when an educator was put on trial in Dayton for daring to teach evolution.
In May, Gov. Bill Haslam said he allowed the legislation to become law without his signature because “good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion.”
Nye is not the only scientist taking the new law to task. Three Vanderbilt University Ph.D.s authored a newspaper commentary earlier this year that accused state lawmakers of hurting efforts by Tennessee, which is the home of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, to build a reputation as a leader in science and technology.
“What high-tech employer will want to open up shop in a state that allows ideology and prejudice to trump science education?” they wrote.
We want to hear from you. Does promoting creationism hurt the teaching of science in Tennessee?
Send your comments to Mailbag, P.O. Box 1717, Johnson City, TN 37605-1717, or mailbag@johnsoncitypress.com. Please include your name, telephone number and address for verification purposes. We will print your comments on the Editorial and Commentary pages in the coming weeks.
ladyseawolfe writes:
October 1, 2012
11:24 AM
In the Beginning Was God. . .No matter how long ago. . .thousands, millions or billions of years!
“He makes His ministers a flame of fire. Am I ignitable? God deliver me from the dread asbestos of ‘other things’.” ~ Elisabeth Elliot
Only you can keep yourself from opening the door to distractions (other things). Be aware!
kpierson writes:
October 1, 2012
12:10 PM
There's a good reason we're the running joke for teaching science. Where once we lead the charge with helping to win a world war, we now have reverted back to pounding on a bible and calling science blasphemy.
Remove Money from Politics writes:
October 1, 2012
12:38 PM
To answer the question posed by the title of this article: Yes, it does.
DrPat writes:
October 1, 2012
6:16 PM
Yes, it does. We will pay for that.
dregstudios writes:
October 1, 2012
6:18 PM
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
mccrayj writes:
October 2, 2012
1:24 PM
You bet it does! As far back as the Scopes Trial, staunch thumpers have given Tennessee a diploma in stupidity and ignorance. I personally find that the two versions actually mesh well, if you realize that the Biblical version was told to people who were totally ignorant of science and physics, and needed an explanation for the things science has long since discovered. Put away the English word "day" for just a moment and think about it meaning a period of time, and let Adam be the first homo sapiens, and what you have is a condensed version of the things that have happened in nature over the course of several million years. But that doesn't work for those who place belief above fact. When will the debate ever end? (See "Inherit the Wind" for the best movie ever of this debate.)
mccrayj writes:
October 2, 2012
1:24 PM
You bet it does! As far back as the Scopes Trial, staunch thumpers have given Tennessee a diploma in stupidity and ignorance. I personally find that the two versions actually mesh well, if you realize that the Biblical version was told to people who were totally ignorant of science and physics, and needed an explanation for the things science has long since discovered. Put away the English word "day" for just a moment and think about it meaning a period of time, and let Adam be the first homo sapiens, and what you have is a condensed version of the things that have happened in nature over the course of several million years. But that doesn't work for those who place belief above fact. When will the debate ever end? (See "Inherit the Wind" for the best movie ever of this debate.)
Randall Flagg writes:
October 3, 2012
12:56 PM
Acceptance of atheism and scientific logic in general has come along way. 20 years ago Bill Nye couldn't have said something like this without his show being pulled off air.
spitfire writes:
October 3, 2012
5:40 PM
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
Colossians 1:16-17
Last time I checked monkeys are not turning into humans and mice are not morphing into rhinos. If evolution were true then why aren't we still evolving...really??? God created everything in it's own specific way. It's man that has corrupted and distorted God's creations.
Killman writes:
October 3, 2012
7:35 PM
As many have said, yes it is hurting it significantly. We should not be teaching dark age nonsense.
CSeggelin writes:
October 3, 2012
9:36 PM
"Last time I checked monkeys are not turning into humans and mice are not morphing into rhinos. If evolution were true then why aren't we still evolving...really???"
Spitfire -- maybe you should make an effort to find out what evolution actually *is* before you start criticizing some straw man argument about mice morphing into rhinos. The modern understanding of evolution is that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor, that ancestor was neither a human nor a modern ape, it was something else that had certain features that we might recognize as common to both humans and apes. It's not like 7 million years ago a modern chimpanzee gave birth to a modern human, that's a complete misrepresentation of evolution. If that's really what you think the theory of evolution posits, then you don't know what you are talking about and should probably stop talking about it.
It's funny that creationists generally have no problem with statements like "humans are vertebrates" or "humans are mammals", but as soon as you get into the vicinity of our closer relatives on the tree of life they start getting antsy. Us apes really started to get into trouble when we began to believe we aren't apes. You're a chordate, so am I. You're a vertebrate, so am I. You're a mammal, so am I. You have a well-developed brain, flexible fingers and toes, and nails on your fingers and toes, and so do I. We call chordate vertebrate mammals with those features PRIMATES. You're a primate, and so am I. You know what other species have those features? Well duh, all the other primates--chimps, bonobos, gorillas, various monkeys, etc.
Talking about mice becoming rhinos or monkeys turning into humans is silly--speciation is simply a measurable process of differentiation over time with clear evidence of common ancestry--there's a reason why all mammals are vertebrates but not all vertebrates are mammals, or that all primates are mammals but not all mammals are primates.
Genetic studies make clear that we share measurable common ancestry with nearly every living thing on this planet--from bees to bonobos, from puffins to protozoans, from tree frogs to trees.
And of course we are still evolving, what makes you think we aren't?
TNCitizen writes:
October 3, 2012
9:48 PM
Poor poor, CSeggelin. You're just embarrassing yourself.
spitfire writes:
October 3, 2012
10:43 PM
Man is supposed to have descended directly from the animal kingdom by means of the same processes involving the same evolutionary factors which caused animals to evolve. For this reason, the differences between man and beast are not regarded as fundamental, but as a difference in degree only. Man has only developed to a higher level. Carsten Bresch describes this view in his definition of evolution [B7, p. 10]: “Evolution is defined as the development of all things in all spheres of our world—including the descent of man from apelike ancestors.” The so-called proofs for evolution based on homologies emphasize the idea of descent from common ancestors.
Scientific Objections: Even on the purely biological plane there is a wide, unbridgeable chasm between man and beast, as illustrated by the following four considerations:
The human brain possesses qualities [G2, p. 115–130] that have no parallel in the animal world. One consequence is man’s explicit mental capabilities.
Man possesses the faculty of speech (see OB2), and his creative communication by means of his vocal system is completely different from those of animals [G7, p. 112–130]. He has the unique ability to pay attention to various matters at will; he has an inconceivably wide range of interests and observation, because it is possible to consider spatially and temporally remote objects; he is able to make abstractions and to use his system of signs for meta-lingual purposes.
Only man is fully bipedal; he can walk upright because of the special structure of the spine. Thus, our hands are not required for locomotion and are available for other purposes.
Only man is able to express emotions (e.g., joy, sadness, hope, laughter, shyness). Some animals seem to have similar abilities, but they cannot be compared with human emotions.
The Bible: The Bible clearly distinguishes between man and beast:
On the sixth day, Adam was created “in the image of God” and quite apart from the land animals through a clearly distinguished separate act of creation. The Hebrew word bara (create) is used three times in Genesis 1:27 to emphasize this act of creation.
Only man received the breath of God. In this way, he was given a spirit (Eccles. 12:7; 1 Thess. 5:23) so that he transcends the world of the animals.
Only when Adam was created, did God “use his hands”: “The Lord God formed [Hebrew yatsar] the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7). In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word yatsar is used to describe the actions of a potter who skillfully and imaginatively forms his vessels. In the same way, God used earthly matter for Adam’s physical parts.
Only man can actually communicate with God. Only he possesses the gift of speech and of prayer by means of which he can express all his thoughts before his Creator. Man was created to be near and close to God. He is dependent on communion with God.
Only man has a free will and possesses the faculty of creative thought. According to Psalm 8:5, man was made “a little lower than the heavenly beings.” Human beings possess gifts such as freely developing personalities, inventiveness, and the capacity for cultural development (writing, music, historical awareness).
Even the difference in flesh is mentioned in the Bible: “All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another” (1 Cor. 15:39). This finding has consequences for molecular biology: Proteins comprise the major part of the body. The human body contains approximately fifty thousand different kinds of proteins, each fulfilling its own specific functions. They have different amino acid sequences. All organisms have certain amino acids in the same positions in the polypeptide chain, and they serve to establish and preserve the characteristic functions of the specific protein. In contrast to this precise positioning, there are other positions where the amino acids clearly differ from one kind to the other.
It is said only about man that he was not only created “by God,” but also “for Him” (Col. 1:16). This high purpose is only ascribed to man. Animals are also creatures of God, but they did not receive the calling to become children of God (John 1:12).
In contrast to the animals, man is an eternal being; this means that his existence never ends, even after the death of the body (Luke 16:19–31). An imperishable body will be raised from the perishable one (1 Cor. 15:42). Quoted from www.answersingenesis.org
I'm not going to force any beliefs on anyone...we all are entitled to our own. We can agree to disagree. I Pray for those that don't believe that God created everything...it's very sad. Satan has distorted man's mind and ruined many wonderful things in...our world, our country, our families, our schools. It won't be long until God says it's enough. We won't have to worry about these silly little disagreements anymore. Every knee will bow and everyone confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. We all, myself included, will have to answer to God and His Judgment on our lives. Our wicked world and those who reject God will be destroyed along with satan & his demons. So many things are lining up with the endtime prophecies. It may be soon or not until 200 more years. Just got to be ready...I am and can't wait to see Jesus and say Thank You in Person!!
Taba3455 writes:
October 4, 2012
9:19 AM
Well it is apparent that “spitfire” was not taught science in school. This is the point that most everyone is trying to make. When we have people so invested in a book written by people who never met, touched, talked or walked with Jesus that they refuse to see beyond their narrow views we will no longer progress as a society. For those so wrapped up in the Bible I encourage you to look at other religions that predate Christianity such as the Persian religions and such. A whole lot repeated information and stories that seem all too familiar. Personally I can’t put a whole lot of stock into a book that claims talking snakes, burning bushes, and ark that held every species of animal 2x2. These are all great stories, but let’s not forget that they are just stories and nothing more. The world is not 6,000 years old as some would like to believe, it is time to embrace facts and science and do away with Religious myths before they do away with us.
TNCitizen writes:
October 4, 2012
12:33 PM
Taba3455, "a book written by people who never met, touched, talked or walked with Jesus"? That is a false statement. I believe you need to check your facts and study Bible history. The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of 66 books by many authors who in fact did walk with Jesus. You can't put down Christianity if you don't know all the facts.
Taba3455 writes:
October 4, 2012
1:27 PM
@TNCitzen
None of the gospels were actually written by the disciples. They were actually written between 30 and 100 years after Jesus’s death. They are not eye witness accounts they are mere portrayals of those who listened to the stories of the disciples. You might want to actually do some research into who wrote the books of the Bible, and not trust your preacher who is giving you his perspective on religion with minimal historical facts.
sbrad1414 writes:
October 4, 2012
5:40 PM
I think the poll speaks for itself and many of these comments confirm the damage integrating creation has already caused.
TNCitizen writes:
October 4, 2012
10:10 PM
Taba3455, your response makes me laugh.
First, I never mentioned that I rely on my "preacher" to tell me who wrote the books of the Bible. So, your last sentence has no bearing.
Second, have you ever heard of the book of Matthew? How about the book of John? What about the book of James, which was written by Jesus' half brother? I Peter? II Peter?
Thirdly, the Bible actually does align with historical records. I'm curious as to which source you've obtained your statements from because they are false. You're not helping your cause.
Taba3455 writes:
October 5, 2012
1:52 PM
THere is no evidence that proves any of the books were actually written by those called the disciples. The authors name is never mentioned and the documents never list an author which only leaves speculation. IF you know someting the rest of the Scientific community has yet to discover please list your sources and evidence. But as stated before, there is no real evidence that suggest that ANY book contained within the Bible were actually written by a person who met Jesus. Which would explain why John fails to mention the Virgin Birth, list Jesus as the one who carries the cross and not Simon, and says Mary Magdalene visited the tomb of Jesus alone.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_any_of_the_authors_of_the_Bible_ever_actually_meet_Jesus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
EaTn writes:
October 6, 2012
6:34 AM
The more science uncovers the intricate details of the universe, the more it proves a perfect detail plan. A plan does not evolve, it is created. If it is created, there is a Creator, which is God. There is no conflict between science and creationism, just those who try to put creationism in a box.
PolymathX writes:
October 8, 2012
11:14 AM
How can offering an alternative hypothesis hurt science? Evolutionists just don't want Creationism taught it schools because they don't agree with it. Period. Let each side have it's say and be done with it.
TNCitizen writes:
October 8, 2012
2:15 PM
@Taba3455 - I would encourage you to read the Bible rather than doing quick Wikipedia searches. I would also encourage you to research the culture during the 1st century AD. The gospels were written by eyewitnesses. The Bible is a collection of 66 books written by 40 authors in 3 languages in 3 different continents over a span of 1,500 years with NO contradictions. No other - and I repeat, no other - book can make this claim.
I'm curious as to who you claim the "scientific community" to be. Do you think Wikipedia is the "scientific community"? Are you a scientist? Actually, New Testament experts and historians agree that the Bible is like no other and that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses.
I'm afraid rather than sincerely trying to seek the truth, you have a worldview that does not include God and attempt to seek sources (rather credible or not) to confirm your worldview.
concernedforAmerica writes:
October 9, 2012
8:35 PM
Remember that an Eternal God isn't limited by the restraints of time.
TNCitizen writes:
October 10, 2012
8:58 AM
@concernedforAmerica - I would recommend ordering the Evolution vs. Creation CD by the late Dr. Ron Carlson (christianministriestintl.org). You can read Dr. Ron Carlson's biography on this website to learn more about him. It is a real eye-opener. However, more important than anything else is our relationship with Jesus Christ. We cannot put a box around our powerful all-knowing omnipresent mighty God just because our feeble human minds have limitations. May God bless you.
MannyCalavera writes:
October 10, 2012
9:22 AM
The fact that there are so many people in this thread that disagree with evolution while displaying their total lack of understanding for the concept is hilarious. And at the same time it makes me embarassed to be an American, as this is the only first-world nation where this is even debated.
TNCitizen writes:
October 10, 2012
1:25 PM
@MannyCalavera – perhaps you should consider moving to another “first-world” country if you are embarrassed to be an American. Please do remember that this country was founded on Christian values, so the fact that many Americans believe in creationism shouldn’t be surprising. Also, there are people in other “first-world” countries that strongly support creationism. Despite what some may believe, not everyone in the world supports the theory of evolution except a group of us slow-learning Americans.
I do not believe I have a total lack of understanding regarding the theory of evolution. (You do know it’s just a theory, right?) I have not simply accepted creationism because that’s what I was taught. I’ve compared the two sides and feel confident in my belief in creationism. Also, I believe it takes much more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does in creationism.
So, I challenge you. Can you provide information to convince me of the theory of evolution? Anything? Because simply making fun of creationists is not a valid argument for the theory of evolution.
Not trying to be callous – just wanted to share this with you. Thank you.
concernedforAmerica writes:
October 10, 2012
8:22 PM
My statement was the two (in theory) could co-exist. The above was an after thought. Either I failed to post them or they have been removed.
concernedforAmerica writes:
October 10, 2012
8:46 PM
The Bible says from the dust man was created, which I believe, but does not say how. It also says, 1000 years is as 1 day to God and 1 day as 1000 years. In other words, none of us know for sure through the eons of time what exactly has transpired, both creationists and evolutionists. So I guess I'm saying creationists can theoretically justify evolution.
dill1982 writes:
October 10, 2012
9:30 PM
I was taught both evolution and creationism as a child. I am glad I was taught both as it gave me the free will to choose for myself. I think we should all be informed but not forced into one way of thinking. I am glad we live in a society where we can still debate and are not forced to fit a mold.
TNCitizen writes:
October 11, 2012
8:54 AM
I agree, dill1982!
TNtommy writes:
October 11, 2012
10:48 AM
@ dill1982 - evolution in science class and creation stories in non-science classes. Creationism is not science (read the kitzmiller v. dover decision). Evolution, as an explanation of the diversity of life on earth, is settled science among the overwhelming majority of life scientists (and other science disciplines, too). Evolution and creationism may be mutually exclusive but evolution and God are not. At least that is what I was taught in a church-based education (kindergarten thru grad school).
TNCitizen writes:
October 11, 2012
12:17 PM
@TNtommy - I could be wrong, but I think dill1982 meant that it is important to be informed on both sides - evolution and creationism, so that you may be equipped to support your beliefs; however, it’s possible that I misunderstood.
Creationism has been rejected as an alternative by many scientists because it relies on a supernatural being, which obviously cannot be tested and observed. Scientists are afraid that belief in a supernatural being will ruin the credibility of science because it would leave the door open to shrug off uncertainties and say, "Well, God did it."
However, it is important to remember that at the same time the theory of evolution is a faith-based alternative which relies on assumptions and appears to have contradictions. That seems to make the theory of evolution biased because science is filtered through the "only" possibility of evolution while ignoring the other alternative that creationism provides.
Both creationism and evolution are philosophical issues rather than scientific. We can't go back and observe the origin of life. We are forced to use a combination of science and faith (whether evolution or creationism) to reach a conclusion. So, that leaves the question: Where do you place your faith? - in man's abilities, educated guesses, and hopes for future revelations or the omnipotent omnipresent God?
TNtommy writes:
October 11, 2012
3:43 PM
@TNCitizen - It isn't clear from my reading of dill1982's post how he or she was exposed to both evolution and creationism in school. My point is that evolution is a subject for science class but that creationism is not. As you point out, creationism can't be tested and thus fails the fundamental test for inclusion in the sciences. However, learning about the creation stories of the bible and other ancient and modern faiths is certainly appropriate for non-science classes (history, comparative religions, world cultures, etc.). So in response to the question that sparked this forum, I would respond yes, teaching creationism in science classes does hurt science eduction with the possible exception of using creationism to illustrate what isn't science. In addition, I wanted to point out that belief in God and agreement with the science of evolution are not mutually exclusive. In fact, this is a very popular position within the mainstream christian churches (google Clergy Letter Project).
I disagree that evolution is faith-based and philosophical any more than the earth not being flat, atoms composing matter and the earth revolving around the sun are faith-based. Of course, at one time they all were but science and human understanding of the physical world have advanced.
I think it comes down to where you put your faith and your human reasoning. The next time your loved one is faced with a life-threatening illness do you choose the medicine developed through the application of evolution-based science or do you just pray? For me, I'll choose both.
ormondjon writes:
November 30, 2012
10:14 AM
"Mere non-belief in a personal God is no philosophy at all."
- Albert Einstein 5/7/52
___________________________________________________________
"I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details."
- Albert Einstein 1952
__________________________________________________________
"Serious intellectual work, and the study of God's Nature are the Angels that will lead me through all the troubles of this life with consolation, strength, and uncompromising rigor."
-Albert Einstein 1957
skdowd writes:
December 4, 2012
9:52 AM
Everybody hear about that Super-Hadron Collider in Switzerland that is making all those incredible discoveries? Well, we began building a much bigger one in Texas in the 80s. Then, a Republican asked the team building it, 'Will we be able to see God?' The spokesperson was flabbergasted and apparently did not come up with a good answer. The funding was stopped. $1 Billion down the drain.
That is what the church can do for our scientific soul. Keep us in the dark.
ormondjon writes:
December 11, 2012
1:29 PM
Please check your facts skdowd. The project was cancellled by Pres. Clinton (Dem) after the Department of Energy's Inspector General released a report through the Projects on Government Oversight. The matter was discussed in Congress for scrutiny, and funding was withdrawn after the Nobel in Physics opinion was the NASA Space Station was probably a better scientific choice. It was noted by Congress that the Texas Super Collider Project originally budgeted for 4.4 billion, and had nearly tripled in costs in 1993 to 12 billion. In the end, Congress blamed the management of the Texas project for allowing the escalating costs as the primary reason for funding denial. 2 billion had been spent at that point. You were wrong in your conclusion the Church played any role whatsoever in the project's downfall.
skdowd writes:
December 14, 2012
5:17 PM
The statement 'Will we be able to see God?' was a real question. Uttered by a science illiterate. In power. Cost overruns and poor management were huge issues, yes. I still say there were people that thought that it did their religion no good, and were not willing to go along with the project. That was partly to blame.
ormondjon writes:
December 15, 2012
8:30 AM
An interesting story. One better suited for the streets of Jonesborough than a public forum like this. Also interesting to me, is how "The Republican" (a nonotorius and nameless character essential in your first tale, leapes forward to become "a science illiterate" in Act 2). " The God Particle" previously demonstrated at the Switzerland collider, offers proof that "the moment of creation" is a viable theory in force dynamics in our Universe. Again. your contention that "people thought that [it] did their religion no good" flies in the face of deductive reasoning. It is a simple to see that the Congress of the US (aided by Japan's decision to remove $2 billion they had previously committed) stopped funding the project. In the future, if you choose to argue for science, please be prepared to offer facts and data as opposed to, "I still say" or colorful unsubstiated anticdotes.