The whole world knows about the video in which Bill Nye Blasts Creationism. Now the creationists are fighting back.
In the Norwich Bulletin of Norwich, Connecticut we read Bill Nye should rethink creationism stance. It’s written by the Rev. Cal Lord, pastor at Central Baptist Church of Westerly. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
I love Bill Nye. He’s funny, entertaining and he has uncanny ability to make science interesting and fun for everyone.
The rev goes on for a couple of paragraphs about what a great guy Bill Nye is. But then the tone changes:
I think that is why I was shocked to hear of the video he put out this week. It is simply titled, “Creationism is not appropriate for children.” At first I thought it was a joke but as I watched it I realized he was quite serious.
That’s right, rev — it’s no joke. Let’s read on:
Nye, who was educated as a mechanical engineer, believes that the theory of evolution is the only credible truth as to how the universe was created and the only pathway to understanding how it works. He is not the first one, and he will not be the last, to hold these views.
The rev actually watched Nye’s video and he thinks evolution explains the creation of the universe? Anyway, we continue:
The Noble Peace Prize winning biologist, George Wald, was quoted in Scientific American magazine in 1957 as saying:
[The rev's purported George Wald quote:] “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”
It’s difficult to believe that a biologist said such a thing — even a Peace Prize winner. Oh, we checked. According to Wikipedia, George Wald “won a share of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.” Well, physiology … peace — what’s the difference?
Regardless of the prize (which is certainly impressive), did Wald really say what the Rev claims he said? To find out, we went to the TalkOrigins website, where they have a trove of information about creationist quote-mining. There we found: Quote #57. It discusses the very words quoted by the rev. Here’s what TalkOrigins says: “The quote is a complete fabrication.” Then they go on to quote what Wald actually wrote. It’s nothing like what the rev claims. Among other things, Wald wrote:
Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order.
Okay, so much for the rev’s Nobel Prize-winning authority. Moving along in the rev’s article:
So riddle me this: Who is doing a greater disservice to the children? Those who honestly share their belief in a creative spirit who designed this wonderful complex, interesting world or those who continue to promote a theory that has been proven impossible by the greatest minds of the ages?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! As the article draws to a close, the rev quotes scripture:
I wonder if Bill Nye has ever read the Psalms. In Psalm 8 King David looks up and asks, “Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory in the heavens. …
That’s nice. But what does it have to do with creationism? Here ya go:
These words have launched a thousand investigations and aroused the curiosity of young minds for centuries. I still like you, but maybe its time to think again Bill Nye?
So there you are, dear reader. The rev is probably a decent fellow, but he should stick to his trade and avoid giving opinions about science.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.