Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children | Big Think
Become a Big Think member to unlock expert classes, premium print issues, exclusive events and more: https://bigthink.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=yt_desc
OVERVIEW:
The school boards around the U.S. who’ve decided to teach children creationism, intelligent design, or whatever you choose to call it, are poking a stick in the eye of anyone who hopes to expand our understanding of the world around us. According to Bill Nye, evolution is such a fundamental scientific truth that…well, watch.
If you dismiss evolution, Nye says, how can you get any of the followup questions right? The massive number of generations required for evolutionary changes make obvious the kind of time involved, lengthening the age of the earth from religion’s few thousand years to science’s billions of them. And that expanded view, argues Nye, makes so many other things make sense: If we’ve only been around a little while, for example, what’s the deal with those ancient dinosaur bones and fossils? A belief in deep time is so critical to our understanding of life, the earth, its processes, and the stars above us, that to deny it is to force oneself into settling for ever-more-implausible explanations of what we see around us.
What’s got Nye even more chagrined is that it’s one thing to turn your own back on science, but when you pass that outlook on to your children, what’s at risk is nothing less than the creation of a generation whose basic premise—creationism—leads to and answers that just get wronger and wronger. Brilliant young minds consigned to scientific failure from the start. We’d hope for better from educators and parents. Just imagine the things these fresh, inquisitive minds could discover someday.
———————————————————————————-
BILL NYE:
Bill Nye, scientist, engineer, comedian, author, and inventor, is a man with a mission: to help foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work. Making science entertaining and accessible is something Bill has been doing most of his life.
———————————————————————————-
TRANSCRIPT:
BILL NYE: Denial of evolution is unique to the United States. I mean, we are the world’s most advanced technological—so, I mean, you could say Japan, but generally the United States is where most of the innovation 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, and all of biology. 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 claim they don’t believe in evolution. And my response generally is: 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 that are at a different point in their life cycle.
The idea of deep time, of billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy, it’s just untenable, inconsistent. And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we have observed 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. It’s just a really hard thing, it’s really a hard thing. In another couple centuries, that world view, I’m sure, just won’t exist, I mean, there’s no evidence for it.
———————————————————————————-
ABOUT BIG THINK:
Smarter Faster™
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content — with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Subscribe to learn from top minds like these daily. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life.
@bigthink
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: https://bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
@KaoticOrder
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Just to remind the atheists: it's Christians like Francis Bacon that came up with the scientific method.
It's degenerate atheists that came up with horrific ideologies like eugenics and lysenkoism.
There is nothing more anti-science than an atheist 😊.
@EnlightenedByKnowledge
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
“God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining.” – Douglas Adams
@DocReasonable
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
ALL fields of science, as well as history, debunk the childish claims of the bible. You cowards are especially terrified of evolution because it disproves your juvenile Book of Genesis fairy tale nonsense. Well, so do cosmology, biogeography, geology and physics in general. Try studying something other than ret@rded bible fables.
@Flanduddlydiddlyanders
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Creationists have NOTHING except lies and logical fallacies.
CASE CLOSED!! 🍾🥂
@joanneosterlund4227
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Nye is Not Qualified . He does Not have a Degree biology Science, no Degree in Chemistry……In any court room He'd be unconsidered for testimony be cause he lack of education That's Fact. Ad nauseam, here's a Fun Fact, Darwin "Did not" again did not have a science Degree………… "Science Guy" Word gimmick to distract you from knowing he's not a Scientist….. He does have lots of Blind Followers, Just like you……….oh Yeah!
@Flanduddlydiddlyanders
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
"Creationists are dishonest out of pure necessity. When you attempt to rationalize irrational beliefs, there is no other option than to distort and deny the truth."
– John Pieret
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
“Humans are evolving into a higher form and a lower form at the same time. Confused? Then guess which one you are.” —Jack Handy
@drflandidlyanders
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
The FACT that Darwinian Evolution EXPOSES "The Book of Genesis" as nothing more than a steaming pile of horse manure is obviously a source of immense psychological discomfort for those in the "Magic-Believing" community aka Intelligent Design fans/Young Earth Creationists/flat Earthers.
Sorry about that.
😆😂🤣
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
I asked ChatGPT the following question:
Are there any formal or informal fallacies in this reasoning:
"When you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe in evolution, it holds everybody back. Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, and all of biology. Not believing in evolution is like 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."
ANSWER:
## 1. *Hasty Generalization*
The claim “a portion of the population that doesn't believe in evolution… holds everybody back” is very broad.
* It assumes that disbelief in evolution necessarily produces a measurable negative effect on *everyone*.
* No evidence or mechanism is given for how that “holding back” occurs (education? policy? science funding?).
👉 This is a classic overreach from a vague premise to a sweeping societal conclusion.
—
## 2. *False Analogy*
The comparison:
> “Not believing in evolution is like trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates.”
This is rhetorically effective, but logically debatable.
* Plate tectonics is a **framework used directly in day-to-day geological modeling and prediction**.
* Evolution is foundational in biology, but many areas (e.g., anatomy, medicine, lab techniques) can still function operationally without explicitly invoking evolutionary theory.
👉 The analogy may exaggerate the practical dependency in order to strengthen the point.
—
## 3. *Equivocation / Ambiguity*
The phrase *“holds everybody back”* is vague.
* Does it mean scientifically? Economically? Educationally? Culturally?
* Without defining the term, the claim can shift meaning depending on interpretation.
👉 This weakens the argument because it avoids a clearly testable claim.
—
## 4. *Appeal to Consequences (mild form)*
The statement suggests:
> If you don’t believe in evolution, your world becomes “a mystery instead of an exciting place.”
* This frames the undesirable consequences of disbelief as a reason to reject it.
* But whether something leads to a “less exciting worldview” doesn’t determine whether it’s true or false.
👉 This is a soft rhetorical appeal rather than a strict logical proof.
—
## 5. *Implicit False Dichotomy*
The last line implies two options:
* Accept evolution → the world is “exciting”
* Reject evolution → the world is “a mystery”
But in reality, there are many intermediate or alternative views:
* Theistic evolution
* Intelligent design
* Partial acceptance of evolutionary mechanisms
👉 The framing compresses a spectrum into a binary.
—
## 6. *Potential Straw Man (depending on context)*
If the speaker is assuming that people who reject evolution:
* cannot understand biology at all, or
* see the world only as “mysterious,”
then it risks oversimplifying opposing views.
—
## Bottom line
* *No formal fallacy* (it’s not a strict logical proof).
* **Several informal weaknesses**, especially:
* Hasty generalization
* False analogy
* Vagueness
* Mild appeal to consequences
The statement works well as **persuasive rhetoric**, but it’s not a tightly reasoned argument in a philosophical or logical sense.
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
TOP PROBLEMS WITH BIG BANG THEORY
1. The “Singularity” Problem
When you mathematically run the universe backward, everything converges to a point of infinite density and temperature—a singularity.
• Physics (especially General Relativity) breaks down at this point.
• We don’t actually know what happened at “time zero.”
• Many physicists suspect a future theory of quantum gravity will replace this idea.
👉 In short: The Big Bang describes what happened after the earliest moment—not the ultimate origin.
⸻
2. What Caused the Big Bang?
The theory explains expansion—but not why the universe began at all.
• No agreed-upon cause or mechanism.
• Hypotheses include:
• Quantum fluctuations
• Multiverse scenarios
• Cyclic universes
👉 This is more a philosophical and theoretical gap than a contradiction.
⸻
3. Horizon Problem (Uniformity of the Universe)
Distant regions of the universe have nearly identical temperatures—even though they should never have interacted.
• This seems impossible under simple expansion.
• Proposed solution: Cosmic Inflation
• A rapid expansion early on that smoothed everything out.
• But inflation itself is still not directly proven.
⸻
4. Flatness Problem
The universe appears almost perfectly “flat” geometrically.
• Even tiny deviations early on should have grown huge over time.
• Why is it so precisely balanced?
👉 Again, inflation helps explain this—but relies on assumptions.
⸻
5. Dark Matter and Dark Energy
To make the Big Bang model fit observations, scientists had to introduce:
• Dark Matter (~27% of the universe)
• Dark Energy (~68%)
Problems:
• Neither has been directly detected in a lab (as of now).
• They make up ~95% of the universe, yet remain mysterious.
👉 Some critics argue this suggests missing physics.
⸻
6. Matter–Antimatter Asymmetry
The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
• They should have annihilated each other completely.
• Yet the universe is dominated by matter.
👉 The mechanism (called baryogenesis) is still not fully understood.
⸻
7. Structure Formation Timing
Recent observations (especially from telescopes like James Webb Space Telescope) suggest:
• Some galaxies appear more developed earlier than expected.
👉 This doesn’t disprove the Big Bang, but challenges details of how quickly structures formed.
⸻
8. Dependence on Inflation (Unverified Add-on)
• Inflation solves several problems—but:
• It’s not directly observed.
• There are many competing versions of it.
• Some physicists worry it’s a “patch” rather than a proven component.
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Some of the greatest scientists in history were creationists:
Using the definition—belief that the universe and life ultimately originate from divine, purposeful creation (often aligned with the biblical view)—many of the most influential scientists in history would qualify. Below are several of the most prominent, with a brief note on how their beliefs fit that definition.
⸻
🧠 Foundational Figures in Science
Isaac Newton (1643–1727)
• One of the greatest scientists ever (laws of motion, gravity, calculus).
• Wrote extensively on theology—arguably more than on physics.
• Believed the universe was created and sustained by God, with order reflecting divine design.
⸻
Johannes Kepler (1571–1630)
• Discovered the laws of planetary motion.
• Saw his work as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
• Explicitly believed in a created cosmos governed by divine order.
⸻
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)
• Key figure in the scientific revolution.
• A believing Catholic who saw no contradiction between Scripture and nature when properly understood.
• Affirmed God as Creator.
⸻
⚗ Pioneers of Modern Science
Robert Boyle (1627–1691)
• Often called the “father of modern chemistry.”
• Strong Christian; funded missions and wrote on theology.
• Believed studying nature revealed God’s workmanship.
⸻
Michael Faraday (1791–1867)
• Discovered electromagnetic induction; foundational to electricity.
• Deeply religious (Sandemanian Christian).
• Viewed the laws of nature as expressions of God’s consistent will.
⸻
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
• Unified electricity and magnetism (Maxwell’s equations).
• Wrote poetry and reflections expressing belief in God as Creator.
• Saw science as uncovering divine order.
⸻
🧬 Later Scientists (Modern Era)
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884)
• Founder of genetics.
• Augustinian monk; his scientific work coexisted with belief in divine creation.
⸻
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895)
• Germ theory, vaccines, pasteurization.
• Rejected spontaneous generation.
• Expressed belief in a Creator and purpose in life.
⸻
William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin (1824–1907)
• Major contributions to thermodynamics.
• Spoke openly about belief in divine design and creation.
⸻
🧩 Important Context
• Many early scientists explicitly believed in divine creation and saw science as uncovering God’s orderly design.
• However, their views were not always identical to modern “young-earth creationism.”
• Some accepted an old Earth or non-literal “days” in Genesis.
• Others held nuanced theological positions.
⸻
⚖ Bottom Line
If your definition is simply:
“belief that the universe and life ultimately originate from divine creation,”
then a large portion of the greatest scientists in history—especially from the 16th to 19th centuries—fit that description, including Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, and others.
@DocReasonable
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
The fact that God hasn't been able to defeat Satan (one of his own creations) in 6,000 years means:
a.) God is not all-powerful
b.) God enjoys evil
c.) God does not exist.
@DocReasonable
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
What a shame the bible is so ambiguous nobody can agree on what it means.
@DocReasonable
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age, and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them. Incurably religious – that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people. Incurably religious…"
Thomas Edison
@Getsgylaphobilat
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
I would just like to say, trying to keep people from sharing their beliefs with their own children is an unreasonable ask. If you believed that you knew the way to get to heaven and that everyone who didn’t would go to hell, why would you keep that a secret? That’s hatred of the highest kind to want someone to go to hell, people shouldn’t have that hatred for their own kids.
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
"An Atheist will allow that there is a Being absolutely perfect, necessarily existing & the author of mankind & call it Nature. He will tell you further that the Author of mankind was destitute of wisdome & designe because there are no final causes & and that matter is space & therefore necessarily existing & having always the same quantity of motion, would in infinite time run through all variety of forms one of which is that of man." — Isaac Newton
@Flanduddlydiddlyanders
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Something that has been a biological reality of nature for 3.5 billion years won't suddenly cease because your feelings were hurt.
Ffs grow up fundies 🤦♂️😔
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
3 QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS
1) Do you subscribe to the belief that evolution created all religions?
“Darwinian evolution is believed by many scientists to have fostered the creation of religion as an evolved, adaptive behavior that enhanced group survival, social cohesion, and cooperation. It likely developed from early human tendencies to attribute natural events to spirits, with rituals functioning to strengthen communal bonds.”
2) There has never been a full century in recorded history without war. Do you blame evolution for this? If not why not?
3) Do you differentiate between species that are ethical, accountable, duty-bound, conscientious, & answerable and species that don’t have these traits? If you do, what is your template/rationale for differentiating?
“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin (Letter to William Graham, July 3, 1881
@TalesOfTheGiant
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
A big reason psychiatrists reject the existence of spirits is ignorance.
Unless you taste pineapple, it is impossible for you to know the flavour of pineapple.
Likewise, one who has never experienced demons might claim demonic voices are but imaginary.
If I explain every detail of a demonic attack to you, I may take a million years – and even then, you could miss everything I say!
Nobody can tell you how pineapple tastes.
All you can do is try it yourself.
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
"I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music." – Charles Darwin
@IceageTilhængerSiden2011
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Teach creation myths in the appropriate class, in religious studies. Leave creation myths out of science lessons.
@TalesOfTheGiant
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
I am Evotard Exterminator, the poor soul excruciated by unclean spirits daily. Battling ghouls possessed of unspeakable powers gives me a unique view of origins.
The matter is not science but logic. One can study science forever and never grasp the point, which is design requires a designer. Random chance (no maker) begets nothing.
If a scientist had an atheist upbringing, he repudiates Genesis and embraces evolution. Fallacies born of ignorance rule his mind, and he regurgitates rubbish like the Big Bang and Natural Selection.
@vincentfox9267
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Science 🧬 is real
@Flanduddlydiddlyanders
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
The problem with creationism is that there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence supporting it
…while biological evolution has overwhelming mountains of evidence supporting it.
😊☕️👌🍿
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
The problem with Darwin's "Origin of Species" was Darwin tried to explain inheritance without genes. He clearly knew that inheritance mattered, but he had no mechanism to explain it. This was actually one of the biggest weaknesses critics pointed out in his theory. To fill the gap, Darwin proposed an incorrect idea called pangenesis, where tiny particles (“gemmules”) from all parts of the body supposedly accumulated in reproductive cells. This attempt to explain heredity didn’t work. The irony is that Gregor Mendel had already solved the inheritance problem mathematically and experimentally but Darwin was ignorant of it. Darwin was thought to have originated the idea of "natural selection", but creationist Edward Blyth described this process in two publications (1835 & 1837) before Darwin used it in Origin of Species in 1859. Blyth is referenced six times in Darwin's "Origin of Species". It wasn’t until around 1900, well after both Mendel & Darwin had died, that Mendel’s work was rediscovered.
Secondly, within the last 20 years another explanation for inheritance arose: Epigenetic Inheritance. Supporters of Darwin thought this type of inheritance could be explained by natural selection but it happened far too fast (within 1-2 generations). Search "instant evolution finches stickleback" without quotes. This misunderstanding persists to this day. If anything, EVOLUTION has been EXPOSED as one of the biggest HOAXES of all time.
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
NOAH's ARK — FACT OR FICTION?
1) In the future when mankind nearly destroys itself, will Bill Nye be remembered as the man who knew more than Jesus?
2) Did Jesus & his contemporaries mistake a Hebrew fairy tale for reality?
Jesus: But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark. (Mat 24:37-38)
Luke: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, (Luk 3:36)
Jesus: And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. (Luk 17:26-27)
Paul (former Christian persecutor): By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. (Heb 11:7)
Peter: Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1Pe 3:20)
Peter: And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2Pe 2:5)
@CarsonJudd-q6p
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
When u put God in front of yourself, your life will dramatically improve, I guarantee u
@Flanduddlydiddlyanders
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
I'm a big fan of Bill Nye The SCIENTIST Guy.
😊👌
@brianboyle4767
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
He looks like Norman Bates trying to cosplay as Jeffrey Epstein, and yet he expects us to take him seriously???
@simonhall8183
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
He’s not a scientist, so why the F would anyone listen to him about things he knows nothing about
@valmid5069
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Bill Nye should also discuss why the Hindu and Islamic cultures etc are toxic in the 21st century
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
QUESTION: Throughout history have persons or societies drifted toward the philosophy of dialectical materialism without even knowing its definition?
ANSWER: Short answer: yes—very often. Dialectical materialism describes patterns of thinking and social change that humans have repeatedly fallen into long before Marx named or systematized it.
Why that happens
Dialectical materialism isn’t just a doctrine; it’s also a way of interpreting reality:
• Material conditions (economics, resources, power) are treated as the primary drivers of history.
• Ideas, morality, religion, and culture are treated as secondary—often explained as byproducts of material forces.
• Change is understood through conflict (class struggle, opposing forces).
You don’t need to know the term to reason this way. If people start explaining everything in terms of who controls resources and who benefits materially, they’re already thinking along those lines.
Historical examples (pre-Marx)
1. Ancient Greek materialists
• Democritus and Epicurus explained reality in terms of atoms and physical processes.
• Ethics and meaning were grounded in material pleasure and pain, not transcendent truth.
• No dialectics in the Marxist sense, but a clear material-first worldview.
2. Late Roman society
• As Rome declined, loyalty shifted from civic virtue and religion toward economic survival and power
• Morality increasingly became instrumental: what works rather than what is true
• This kind of collapse often pushes societies toward material explanations
3. Enlightenment Europe
• Many thinkers reduced religion to social utility or economic control
• History began to be explained as progress driven by technology, labor, and production
• This laid the groundwork Marx later formalized
Societies drifting into it unintentionally
Revolutionary movements are especially prone:
• French Revolution: class conflict + material grievances before Marx existed
• Peasant uprisings: oppression understood primarily through land, food, taxes
• Labor movements often adopt materialist assumptions before adopting Marxist language
In these cases, people didn’t say “dialectical materialism,” but they acted as if:
“Change happens because of material conflict, and ideas follow power.”
Modern examples (without the label)
Many people today reject Marx explicitly yet think in dialectical-materialist ways:
• Reducing morality to economics (“people only believe that because of money”)
• Explaining religion as class control
• Treating history as inevitable progress driven by material conditions
• Assuming conflict between groups is the engine of all change
That’s dialectical materialism without the vocabulary.
A key insight
Marx didn’t invent this way of thinking—he named, systematized, and weaponized tendencies that already existed.
Whenever a culture:
• Loses confidence in transcendent truth
• Becomes skeptical of moral absolutes
• Centers meaning on production, power, and conflict
…it will naturally drift toward something very close to dialectical materialism.
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
BILL NYE & FOLLOWERS HELP HISTORY TO REPEAT
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898–1976) was a committed Marxist–Leninist, and under that worldview:
• Christianity was regarded as superstition
• Religion was seen as an obstacle to scientific socialism
• Faith was framed as a relic of class oppression
Lysenko consistently portrayed genetics (especially Mendelian genetics) as:
• “bourgeois”
• “idealist”
• incompatible with dialectical materialism
Since Soviet ideology treated Christianity as the ultimate form of idealism, Lysenko’s attacks on “idealism” implicitly included Christianity.
Explicit anti-religious alignment
Even if Lysenko didn’t write theological essays, he:
• Publicly embraced state atheism
• Supported the Communist Party’s campaign against religion
• Framed nature as fully malleable by human will and environment — a view that rejected any notion of divine order or fixed creation
This put him squarely in line with the Soviet belief that religion (including Christianity) was:
“a harmful illusion hindering progress”
The deeper philosophical conflict
Christianity teaches:
• Creation has an ordered structure
• Limits exist that humans must respect
• Truth is discovered, not invented
Lysenkoism taught the opposite:
• Nature has no fixed laws
• Organisms can be reshaped at will
• Scientific truth should serve ideology
This made Christianity not just wrong in Lysenko’s view, but dangerous, because it implied constraints beyond political power.
Why this matters
Ironically, many historians note that Lysenkoism itself functioned almost like a pseudo-religion:
• Orthodoxy enforced by authority
• Heresy punished (often fatally)
• Dissent silenced, not debated
In rejecting Christianity, Lysenko didn’t replace faith with science—he replaced it with ideology.
@babydragon2047
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
📍
@BalongImong
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
I wonder where they come from And who created all? And who can tell the story About their awesome role.
@DocReasonable
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Evolution was known about long before Darwin came along, u fccn creatards.
Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water, and only spent part of their life on land…. HE WAS CORRECT!
@alanclarke7
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
ARE SCIENCE & RELIGION COMPATIBLE?
"No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find a contradiction between religion and natural science. On the contrary, we find a complete concordance in the very points of decisive importance. Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, as many contemporaries of ours would believe or fear; they mutually supplement and condition each other. The most immediate proof of the compatibility of religion and natural science, even under the most thorough critical scrutiny, is the historic fact that the very greatest natural scientists of all times — men such as Kepler, Newton, Leibniz — were permeated by a most profound religious attitude. At the dawn of our own era of civilization, the practitioners of natural science were the custodians of religion at the same time." —Max Planck
@Aurora666_yt
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
I wonder if there are any flerfers watching this video.
@makealivingasaphisherman
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
In another hundred years people are still going to be religious, they'll cling to that superstitious fairytale nonsense 'til the day the world wipes itself out and regardless of whatever happens in the world. It's 2026, people are still heavily religious, the world's a fascistic corporate and government tyranny; a cyberpunk dystopia replete with AI burning the world down further, a massive surveillance state, the draconian assault on free speech and press, a shattered economy, etc, and plenty of people still believe in that archaic bible nonsense. And do you know why? Christianity became about MAGA idolization of authoritarian/totalitarian rule. If it has to do with corporate greed, tyrannical policies, etc, THAT is gods will as far as they're concerned. If things went the direction of freedom, well, then we might get Christians to finally humble themselves and question their thought process/beliefs.
@drflandidlyanders
March 23, 2026 at 7:40 pm
Creationists are like the prisoners in Plato's cave. Their false worldview is so ingrained into their warped psyche that reality terrifies them, so they scurry back to the cave to wallow in the comfort of their ignorance.
Comments are closed.