Last week several friends e-mailed me about a YouTube video-release featuring public television personality, Bill Nye. Many of you may remember his PBS spots known as “Bill Nye – The Science Guy.” His science lessons were brilliantly laced with wit and humor disarming the unsuspecting, after-school audience into embracing one more academic session for the day. The programs always left me fascinated with science and more inquisitive about the world around me.
You might imagine how disappointed I was viewing his recent video entitled “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children.” It was difficult to watch for two reasons. First, he was no longer the jovial, master of timing that I came to appreciate as a teenager. In fact, his quasi-coherent rant portrayed a very annoyed and even, to a degree, agitated man.
And secondly, there was nothing scientific about his claim. Dr. Nye used his iconic status of champion of the scientific method as a warrantable basis for a philosophical diatribe against creationism. As is often the case with such attempts, he exposed the weaknesses of his very best objections.
Speaking of the long-term, national dangers that creationism poses, “The Science Guy” said, “The United Sates 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 that, it holds everybody back…really.”
He must be referencing the way Johann Kepler held back the field of astronomy, or Isaac Newton held back physics, or Carolus Linnaeus held back biology, or Louis Pasteur held back organic chemistry, or Gregory Mendel held back genetics.
In a follow-up radio interview with Scott Paulsen, a popular morning personality on WDVE in Pittsburgh, Bill reiterated his belief that “creationism stifles innovation and ingenuity.”
“Without innovation you’re not going to have jobs,” he explained. “Without science, you’re not going to have innovation – engineers and scientists. Creationism is not going to be able to help you with that. There is no information there.”
In the course of his lament, he mentioned several inventors and scientists from America’s strong, innovative past, failing to realize that half of them acknowledged God as the Creator of all things.
In the YouTube video he warns, “Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. The idea of deep time, of this [sic] 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.”
Skeptics love to accuse creationists of not believing in evolution and then cite evidences of horizontal change (based on genetic predisposition for adaptability) within organisms. This type of change is what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands and is scientifically verifiable. The problem comes at the point of the philosophical leap that proposes vertical change (based on the belief that anything is possible with enough time) from one organism into a distinct, new creature on the conceptual Tree of Life.
Those who regard the Genesis account as historical, embrace adaptation and speciation within the established boundaries of Creation’s Orchard of Life, with each trunk representing a distinct “kind.” So, in that sense, we do “believe in evolution,” but the opposition is certainly not inclined to debate within the frame of a clear definition of terms.
I’m glad that Bill Nye refers to “deep time” as an idea, because that is the extent of its legitimacy. According to Harvard professor, Stephen J. Gould (Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle), “When we finally discard the empiricist myth that turned (James) Hutton into his opposite (a field-work fraud), we can properly seek the discovery of deep time in those a priori concepts that Hutton viewed as the rational basis for his or any theory of the earth. He did not find deep time or cyclicity in rocks…deep time is the essential ingredient of unbounded cycles, established by logical necessity prior to confirmation in the field.”
So while (Charles) Lyell expanded on Hutton’s work under the assumption that it was genuinely empirical, Charles Darwin discovered in Lyell’s work (Principles of Geology) the deep time that would be required to lend credibility to his theory of the transmutation of species and his phylogenic “tree of life.”
In each case, observation was preceded by theory. Data was contextualized by assumptions. Science has not proven “deep time”; but proponents of evolution still embrace this notion as an indisputable, doctrinal authority (see Scripturosity articles “Deep Time Warp” Part 1 & Part 2).
The gulf between evolutionism and creationism is not over data or discovery. The great chasm is conceptual. Creationists approach the evidence on display around the world from the philosophical axiom of the ancient, Sacred Text. What most evolutionists don’t acknowledge is that they, similarly, have a contextual starting point – deep time. Any forensic summation of the evidence is inevitably filtered through the philosophical bias of the observer. The truth is representatives from both worldviews can advance good science. One’s origins paradigm does not influence their work in the science lab or the inventor’s bench.
Rather than “untenable” or “inconsistent,” the biblical worldview draws tremendous clarity to our observations and reveals unequivocal purpose for our existence (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). Perhaps Bill Nye’s vexation with creationism is more about the validity that any physical compatibility might convey on the spiritual lessons and prophetic claims of its documented source than anything else. From the standpoint of implied, personal vulnerability, his sense of alarm makes perfect sense.
Hi Marc,
In regard to Bill Nye’s noted video and disposition, have not we (like our friend Peter) also aggressively denied Jesus Christ in one way or another (like a climactic storm before its appointed calm)? Therefore, in the present case let us leave this man alone! Let him go! For if his purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, we will not be able to stop this man; we will only find ourselves fighting against God. Or, stated another way:
Jesus Christ, in the gap, who built up the wall
Let us so keep (and judge not) the law
The Father’s gift that cannot be earned
“Foolishness”—unless spiritually discerned
Thank you,
Don
Don,
I agree with your suggested response in the context of personal mistreatment or misunderstanding, but as it relates to an overall attack on the authority of Scripture and subsequent, collateral soul-damage I could not disagree more. Our hope is moored to the thematic message of restoration which is contingent upon the accuracy of every account and chronicle. If the historicity of a supernatural event beyond the bounds of repeatability such as Creation or the Flood as detailed in Genesis can be questioned, why should anyone place any confidence in the passages that account the bodily Resurrection of our Lord. Any rational appreciation of John 3:16 or John 14:19 is inextricably connected to the dependability of Genesis 1:1. Christ used fairly strong language when addressing the fate of those that would “offend” or trip up the youth. Bill Nye and those like him would be better off getting measured for a “millstone” than causing the “little ones” to stumble in their search for truth.
Respectfully,
Marc
Leave Brittne . . . er . . . Bill Nye ALONE!!!!!!!
– Chris Crocker
This man has scales on his eyes and cannot see the truth. The natural man will always work hard to disprove scientific evidence of creation, and attempt to rationalize his own idea of truth. The motive is always to discredit God and the need for God. The beautiful possibility is that once the scales are removed, all evidence for creation makes perfect sense, and man can then view God’s creation and laws of physics working together in perfect harmony. Science through the eyes of creation reveals the wonder, majesty and power of almightly God to the beholder. I pray this man can one day see the truth and proclaim it to all he has led astray.
Well said Deb!
Hi Marc,
Question: Why should anyone place any confidence in the passages that account the bodily Resurrection of our Lord?
Answer: Love.
Thank you,
Don
“For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers,…
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” Titus 1:10,11
Dear James,
This man is not a religious imposter (as Titus 1:10,11 is addressing), but an upfront unbeliever and a scientist, whom we should not slander (Titus 3:2, James 4:1). Disbelief like his has at other times elicited similar, “shall we call down fire from heaven” responses, only to be followed by the Lord’s rebuke, “you do not know what spirit you are of.” Pastor Bianchi, I would exhort you as a son to a father to reconsider your position on this. After all what business is it of ours to judge those outside the church?
Sincerely yours,
Don
Do you notice that transmutation is always limited to living things? Why not apply the same logic to non-living things, say the periodic table? why doesn’t hydrogen transmutate into helium, and helium into lithium, etc. Given enough time what is so hard about adding just one more proton (and associated electrons and neutrons) to an existing element and getting the next element on the periodic chart? You would think the same logic would apply. Even the transitional elements which do exhibit change do not become more complex but less complex, looking for a stable form that no longer changes. Nothing becomes more complex or more energetic, everything that changes is looking to be less complex and less energetic. The laws of thermodynamics require it. Deep time is no substitute for the natural laws that God has established. Living things are subject to the same natural laws, when a mutation occurs it doesn’t become more complex, but less complex, and does not support the “theory” (not a law because it can’t be verifyably proven) of evolution.
Love ya lots,
Dad
Dad,
As always, this is an excellent deduction of logic. The elemental table would, to be consistent with their model, have started with a single hydrogen atom and evolved by some means akin to biological transmutation. This would make perfect sense since organic cells eventually came from inorganic chemicals. The process of proceeding to complexity would essentially be a continuation from its inorganic lineage.
Nothing miraculous about any of that! 🙂
Love,
Marc
Excellent reply to Nye’s video!
You might be interested in a series of 5 blog posts I did last fall which rebutted Nye’s thinking and applied Biblical passages to show that Christians should not follow Nye’s advice with their children. The first post is Bill Nye’s Campaign Against Creation #1.
Dr. Pelletier,
Thanks for your encouragement and for turning me on to your blog. I thought your article on Bill Nye was well presented with some fresh thoughts.
Keep up the great work!
Marc
Great post Marc, I was listening to the radio that day and the science guy had me arguing out loud alone in my car. 🙂 I am quite certain my argument was not nearly as well said as yours. Thanks for being an example, have a great weekend!
Bob