Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Aug 23, 2012

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. According to Bill Nye, aka "the science guy," if grownups 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."

Don't miss new Big Think videos! Subscribe by clicking here: http://goo.gl/CPTsV5

-- Transcript:
Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, 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. People still move to the United States. And that's largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science. When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.

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.

As my old professor, Carl Sagan, said, "When you're in love you want to tell the world." So, once in a while I get people that really—or that claim—they don't believe in evolution. And my response generally is "Well, why not? Really, why not?" Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don't believe in evolution. I mean, here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they're at a different point in their lifecycle. 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.

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, 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 can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

It's just really hard a thing, it's really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I'm sure, will be, it just won't exist. There's no evidence for it.

Directed / Produced by
Jonathan Fowler and Elizabeth Rodd

Comments • 528,705

So religion has raised it's ugly head again with the execution of 12 people in Paris today by followers of "yhwh" (yes, Allah is "yhwh"). That is why religion is a cancer.
View all 324 replies
Hide replies
Here's the most basic science that refutes fish to mankind evolution. Evolution occurs, but the crucial fact is that it's observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that there are barriers that evolution cannot cross: For example that no matter how many generations go by (in the lab or in nature): ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria, canines remain canines, felines remain felines and many more such barriers. Fish to mankind evolutionists throw out science on the matter to instead give reasons to believe otherwise: that there are NO barriers, then call their reasons to believe "evidence", which is really anti-science and just another belief system but one that's being passed off as science in all our schools.
View all 14 replies
Hide replies
"Jesus isn't a prophet JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD" - Resistance Is Futile
View all 6 replies
Hide replies
Another one true god
Disclaimer:  All of gods views and opinions are my own except those that I have subconsciously inherited from my parents (common descent) and those that I have nicked from far cleverer people than I.  I have no affiliation with Jeb Enterprises Pty. Ltd., the handsome Frenchmen, that tall dark Aussie, the Dutchman's back, the British Scientist nor the world renowned Berkeley Professor (LOOK! There goes his fucks) other than genealogical relatedness. No harm was intended nor implied.
View all 11 replies
Hide replies
It's so saddening that the most staunch and fixated defenders of creationism on this video's comment sections (all two of them) have grips on their lives that are so precarious that they'll embrace any preposterous delusion rather than face an occasional bleak truth. Nature doesn't care about their feelings, convictions, or their place in the universe, but that doesn't automatically mean that there's an omnipotent, omniscient, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, pan-dimensional entity who does care about your place in the universe. So here they are, killing time that they'll never get back in the hopes that their daily copypasta and edgelord drama will eventually shower them with the happiness and meaning that they so desperately seek. Meanwhile, pigs remain terrestrial-bound creatures with no appendages that suggest self-sustained flight capabilities.
View all 7 replies
Hide replies
Steve McRae
Debating a creationist is like trying to play chess with someone who only knows how to play checkers.
View all 500 replies
Hide replies
Giggles has been schooled and destroyed on all her Discovery Institute claims over the years - the precambrian, 'junk' DNA, unguided mutations, nucleosides on meteors, etc. All have been laughably obvious arguments form incredulity. And now we hear that nature can't come up with skulls that look similar in different lineages. Who'd have thought it? Well done, Stephen Meyer and all Bible inerrantists who sail with him.
"Convergent/parallel/independent traits on unrelated species violates the expected evolutionary pattern and is a FATAL OBJECTION to Darwinian evolution!" A fundie. Deathly allergic to reading, learning and logical thought.
Rational scientists study nature and apply those observations about how it behaves as explanations for how the natural universe works. Until we have an intelligent designer to study, we have nothing to apply. It's irrational to use a completely unknown variable in a hypothesis or theory. It's no different than saying "X did it."
View all 5 replies
Hide replies
Miss Bonito, your "impassioned" rush to dissociate yourself from convergence is a nice, tidy bit of evidence that you accept it fully.
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...