Tennessee Legislator: Einstein Would Have Supported Creationism [VIDEO]

Albert Einstein was a lot of things.  But most importantly, he was a scientist.  And as a scientist, the idea that he would want creationism taught in schools is laughable.

But that didn’t stop a Tennessee Representative from declaring that Einstein would support their new “science” curriculum.  In fact, according to Think Progress, Rep. Frank Nicely provided some lovely quotes from the great thinker to support him on the floor.

I think that if there’s one thing that everyone in this room could agree on, that would be that Albert Einstein was a critical thinker. He was a scientist. I think that we probably could agree that Albert Einstein was smarter than any of our science teachers in our high schools or colleges. And Albert Einstein said that a little knowledge would turn your head toward atheism, while a broader knowledge would turn your head toward Christianity.

The problem is, as Think Progress points out, Einstein never said that.  It was a bad paraphrase of philosopher Sir Francis Bacon.

Perhaps they should stop trying to change the science curriculum in Tennessee and spend a little more time on literature and philosophy instead.

Watch the video below:

 

Photo from youtube screen grab

346 comments

David D.
David D.4 years ago

Creationism is hooey. That doesn't mean that God didn't create the world. Science stands on its own authority. There is no "Bible" that imposes scientific knowledge.
It's like this:
The theory of relativity, which was founded on understanding of basic principles of physics and math, led to the invention of the atomic bomb. Because of our scientific understanding, we were able to make a bomb that explodes.
The bomb doesn't explode because someone says a prayer, or speaks a magic phrase, etc.
When you get in your car and turn on the ignition, the motor starts up. If it doesn't start up, you check the gas, the battery, the fuses, etc., until you figure out why the car didn't start.
That is "science".
The validity of evolution isn't just a matter of the science of biology. It's also supported by the science of geology. Geologists know where to find oil because they have scientific knowledge of the strata and age of the earth's crust, not because the Bible tells them where to look. Likewise, the science of astrophysics and the science of nuclear physics informs our understanding of molecular science and biological science.
The Bible is the story of the evolving relationship between God (whether you believe in God or not) and man. Scientific knowledge continues that trajectory. Christianity has evolved over the centuries, esp. in the last 50 years.
Creationism is preposterous and is simply a matter of fools interfering in the lives of people who know better, whether

Robert P.
Robert P.4 years ago

The writer of this article starts by assuming the Creationism is anti-scientific. The SCIENTIFIC evidence supports a young earth and show that macro-evolution is impossible. DNA controls how a cell is formed, its function, and what living entity is formed by multiple cells. To go from a simple one-celled animal to a complex animal, a mammal, for example requires much moe information in the DNA. ALL mutations reduce the amount of DNA in a cell. Most are damaging or fatal to the animal, but a very few are beneficial. Even those benficial ones reduce the amount of DNA. In other words, mutations CAN'T cause a simple animal to develop into a complex one, even over millions or years.
This isn't the place to go into complex explanations of scientific arguments in geology, astronomy, etc. I used the DNA explanation because it can be explained quickly. If anybody is interested, I suggest you investigate the scientific reasons that creationism is true. The creationist position is the only one available that fits the scientific evidence.
By the way,the Editor-in-chief of Scientific American a number of years ago became convinced that intelligent design or creationism was true based on his scientific investigations. When he told the board, he was immediately fired even though he could provide scientific reason for his position. There is an extreme bias-bigotry against science based creationists.

Thomas M.
Tom M.5 years ago

Hannah:

You are clearly a raving and closed minded Fundamentalist who doesn't even bother to understand what it is you rant against. You say that Darwin "erroneously applied Dalton's Atomic theory to evolution." You are not only making up nonsense out of thin air, but you demonstrate in a rather embarassing fashion that you understand nothing about Darwinian evolution.

Darwin was not addressing the "Origin of Life" in his work, but the "Origin of SPECIES." In other words, he was attempting to explain the diveristy of life, not it's origins. But rabid Fundies like you are so interested in pushing your biased agenda you won't take a time to understand what it is that has you so fearful.

Go ahead, quote some more Wikipedia now . . .

annelies j.
annelies j.5 years ago

Hannah Doolee, I don't think you would want to live in a world without science. Without it, you think you would have your computer? Hell, you and many of us wouldn't even be here. Just think about all the medical advances in the past 150 years, thanks to science, not religion!

Hannah Doolee
Hannah Doolee5 years ago

Part 2

Yes humans who are religious will worhsip idols, animals, and what have you as you
go around the world. Some can invoke spirits when in trance. Religions also have
history of wars, killings, genocides. " Love thy neighbour " if you want to be part of
your community.Taoists and Sai Baba's followers come round every week to an old
folks' home here performing chores.
Darwin, Einstein by comparison did not inspire as both were guilty of plagiarism.
Can we trust what the medics are dishing out as cancer cures? All their so-called
drugs are poisons designed to make them rich at theexpense of patients with less
than 5% cures from statistics. Or companies like Monsanto responsible for millions
of tons of pesticides,herbicides into the habitat as a result of which our world is now
apocalyptic.
Hey give me religion anytime but not quack docs or scientists claiming the moon.

Hannah Doolee
Hannah Doolee5 years ago

Part 1
Hi cyclohexane reaction to cyclohexene reaction given in wikipedia as example
cannot proceed since free energy change is positive.Heating will result
in total entropy increase if you include products of combustion and then it can
be converted to cyclohexene as the free energy decreases.It is possible since
gaseous products of combustion have more entropy and enthalpy.
Not so in the case of creation of life from atoms as Dalton states in his Atomic Theory
which Darwin erroneously applied to origin of species since free energy change
has to be positive. Adding energy will result in more chaos, enthalpy, entropy
destroying the life form.Isn't this what happens in cremation?
Thousands of atempts by scientists to create life from basic atoms have not had
success not even Frankenstein type creations except in the mind. It is pure alchemy
exactly like creating elemental gold in the Middle ages. Tinkering around with plant
or animal cells which are already alive cannot fall into the realm of creation. It is simply
man made modification of existing life form into useless GM forms which can render normal
strains sterile within 2 generations, or worse suddenly result in deadly AIDS from
monkeying around with Salk vaccines.As I see it scientists have blemished record.

Ann Fox
Ann Fox5 years ago

I know, I know......Super Genius .....Wiley Coyote! Seriously though I think it might have been the Leprechauns! I am also partial to pink unicorns, elephants, the easter bunny, santa claus,and I will probably run out of room to list all the things it COULD have been!

annelies j.
annelies j.5 years ago

I asked Ainsley this question a few posts back, but she never responded.

annelies j.
annelies j.5 years ago

J Roberts, again, who or what created your "super-genius creator"?

Thomas M.
Tom M.5 years ago

Hannah:

Not sure what you don't understand about the 2nd Law . . . . but you can quote Wikipedia all day (do you even understand what you're quoting btw?), it doesn't change the fact that the 2nd Law applies to closed systems and the earth is NOT a closed system.

Besides, we see evolution occuring today, with every little change that is observed in a given population.

Obviously no physical laws are being violated.

As for your recoveries from various ailments . .. first -- congrats! But keep in mind that these things happen for atheist too. (You don't really think that creationists have the market cornered on cancers that go into remission do you?). Second, my creationist die of the very things you've recoverd from every day. So what's your point?

Finally, you too will die like all the rest of us one day. I don't imagine you think you are any different from the rest of us in that department do you?