Why I can't take Bill Nye seriously

In his latest book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, Bill Nye the "Science Guy" sounds more like those ignorant creationists he likes to ridicule than an objective, reasonable man of science:

In general, creationist groups do not accept evolution as the fact of life. It's not just that they don't understand how evolution led to the ancient dinosaurs, for example, they take it another step and deny that evolution happened at all anywhere, let alone that it is happening today. They want everyone else in the world to deny it, too, including you and me.

Inherent in this rejection of evolution is the idea that your curiosity about the world is misplaced and your common sense is wrong. This attack on reason is an attack on all of us. Children who accept this ludicrous perspective will find themselves opposed to progress. They will become society's burdens rather than its producers, a prospect that I find very troubling. Not only that, these kids will never feel the joy of discovery that science brings. They will have to suppress the basic human curiosity that leads to asking questions, exploring the world around them, and making discoveries. They will miss out on countless exciting adventures. We're robbing them of basic knowledge about their world and the joy that comes with it. It breaks my heart. (p. 10)

So, according to Nye, creationists have no interest in exploring the world around them, nor do they understand the joy of discovery. He is probably thinking of creationists like Francis Bacon, who gave us the scientific method. Maybe he is thinking of Johannes Kepler and his laws of planetary motion. Or perhaps he has in mind Isaac Newton, who revolutionized mathematics and physics.

Oh, but all those guys came before Charles Darwin, the patron saint of evolution. I suppose, then, Nye must have been referring to creationists like Louis Pasteur, the father of microbiology. Or James Joule, whose work with heat led to the law of conservation of energy and the first law of thermodynamics. Or Joseph Lister, the father of modern surgery. Come on, Bill.

I submit that it was a love of God and his creation that fueled the curiosity of these Christian scientists. The same can be said of modern creationists. After all, scripture is full of curiosity-inspiring passages:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

"He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing." (Job 26:7)

"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4)

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

Undeniable, at its outset, demonstrates Nye's ignorance of science, history, and what creationists actually believe. It also showcases his willingness to lie in order to demonize those who disagree with him. It's this kind of nonsense that makes it extremely difficult to take him seriously as a scientist.

Evolutionists set to go on the offensive

Evolutionists are upset that they can't seem to convince people fast enough that their worldview is superior to that of creationists. Their frustration is understandable. I mean, it's obvious to anyone with a brain that the earth is billions of years old. It's obvious that humans crawled up from the primordial soup. It's obvious that all living matter evolved from inorganic matter. It's obvious that everything came from nothing, for some reason, in defiance of every known physical law.

Dana Hunter, who blogs for Scientific American, thinks it's time for evolutionists (you know, real scientists) to go on the offensive and expose "creation science for the incoherent farce that it is":

So keep after them, when you get chances to confront them in public, or even just casually. Demand the mountains of rock-solid data. Demand the models that explain and predict more elegantly than our current ones. Demand they confront and resolve unanswered questions with their models. Demand the peer-reviewed papers that specifically back up their claims, and if they haven't got them, demand they write up and submit their work to reputable professional journals. Settle for nothing less than valid science of such quality that it can win majority support amongst the professionals. If they can't provide that, too bad for them. They'll have to come back when they can.

In short, make sure creationists are held to the exact same scientific standards that evolutionists refuse to be held to. Sounds like a winning strategy to me.

Justin Taylor offers biblical reasons to doubt 24-hour creation days

I have always held to the belief that the earth is relatively young. As to the exact age, I cannot say, but I still believe that its age can be measured in terms of thousands of years rather than millions or billions.

Justin Taylor leaves open the possibility of an old earth. In doing so, he offers some biblical reasons to doubt that the creation days mentioned in Genesis refer to 24-hour periods of time. He concludes:

God is portrayed as a workman going through his workweek, working during the day and resting for the night. Then on his Sabbath, he enjoys a full and refreshing rest. Our days are like God's workdays, but not identical to them.

How long were God's workdays? The Bible doesn't say. But I see no reason to insist that they were only 24 hours long.

I remain convinced of my position. First of all, regardless of how we wish to handle "day" in Genesis, each one, save for the seventh, has the clear distinction of having an "evening and morning." If the word "day" is supposed to refer to an indeterminate amount of time, does that mean the words "evening" and "morning" are just as ambiguous?

Let me pause to say that I realize the first three days wouldn't have included sunset and sunrise, because the sun wasn't created until the fourth day. But since even the original readers of this account would have only known days marked by an evening and morning, it makes sense that an author wishing to convey that the world was created in six 24-hour days would use the terminology he did.

Secondly, Jesus seemed to believe that the each day in Genesis referred to a rather short time span when he said that "from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'" "From the beginning" doesn't leave much room to squeeze in vast amounts of time.

There are other reasons for my skepticism, but in spite of that I do appreciate Justin's post. It endeavors to interpret the Genesis creation account in light of scripture rather than the prevailing scientific consensus. The belief that the creation days weren't necessarily 24 hours in length does not mean that one must assume macroevolution and death before the fall.

Justin also reminds us that some of the great names in Reformed history were open to a non-literal interpretation of the creation account. He quotes J. Gresham Machen, who wrote, "It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each."

I would agree. After all, determining the age of the earth is not as fundamental as, say, the deity of Christ.

In short, calculating the age of the earth is not a hill upon which I am willing to die. If I can find common ground with Arminians, I can certainly find common ground with Old-Earthers.

Combating anti-creationism with better screening and cheaper seminary training

I have long believed that those holding to old-Earth creationism or theistic evolution do so out of intellectual laziness. It's much easier to interpret scripture in light of the conclusions drawn by atheist scientists. We Christians are simple folk. We can't possibly be considered competent when it comes to complicated issues like figuring out the age of the earth. I mean, taking the Bible at face value? Who does that anymore?

Unfortunately, many of us have abandoned sound, critical, biblical reasoning when it comes to science. We have bought into the lie that science and religion don't mix. The Word of God, which should be the lens through which we see all of creation, is now the object of study through a naturalistic lens. As a result, the literal six days of creation in the book of Genesis are reduced to mere literary devices used to describe what couldn't possibly have been understood by primitive minds. This is know as the "framework hypothesis."

Gary North describes how the framework hypothesis has infected Presbyterianism. The solution? Better screening and more accessible seminary training:

The framework hypothesis offers seminary graduates a way to wiggle out of the textual trap of Genesis 1. But there is no wiggle room in the chronology of Genesis 11. If Presbyterian ruling elders wanted to screen out the frameworkers, they could use the chronology of the flood to serve as a substitute for Genesis 1. They could grill them in their presbytery examinations. Those candidates who see what Genesis 11 will do to their academic self-image could then become Methodists or Episcopalians.

It is time for presbyteries to set up their own online seminaries, give the training away for free on YouTube and WordPress.com, and bring candidates under real care of regional presbyteries. Young men would not have to go into debt. Older men could do this on a part-time basis after work. There would be far more candidates for the ministry. The range of talents would be wider.

In 1811, American presbyteries began to surrender to the newly invented theological seminary (Princeton) the spiritual authority to monitor the progress of candidates for the ministry. The Calvinist Congregationalists had invented the first seminary in 1808 — Andover — because Harvard had publicly gone Unitarian in 1805. But they still required their young men to graduate from Harvard or Yale, and then study three more years. This dramatically reduced the supply of Calvinists for Congregational pulpits, and by 1860, the Unitarians had taken over Congregationalism. They had the votes.

This was replicated by Presbyterianism. The liberals took over all but Princeton Seminary by 1900, and by 1926 were in control of the Presbyterian Church, USA. In 1936, they de-frocked nine Calvinist pastors for resisting — out of 10,000 ministers.

Lesson: the faction that sets policy for the seminaries will take over the denomination within 50 years. It has to do with screening.

It is time for presbyteries to reassert their authority to train pastors — where Presbyterian law has always officially lodged this authority. Internet technology makes this possible. Cheap.

If Salman Khan can teach 10,000,000 students every month for free, then a presbytery can do the same for maybe 10 to 15 students. Trust me. It really can. The presbyteries can farm out some courses across presbyterial boundaries. The Internet is in the cloud. It's great for heavenly material.

Creationism should not be dismissed as a peripheral issue. While a thorough scientific understanding of Genesis 1 isn't on par with faith and repentance, it remains a vital part of our theology.

Creationist Ken Ham Debates Evolutionist Bill Nye Tonight

Anyone familiar with Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham knows that he is pretty hard-line when it comes to creation, so it really wasn't surprising when he challenged Bill Nye to a debate:


The debate is scheduled for 7:00 pm EST, 6:00 pm CST. You can tune in live here.

Those Who Pride Themselves on Evidence Tend to Ignore It

Many scientists believe that the element molybdenum was crucial to the origin of life on Earth. However, current evolutionary thought suggests that particular element wasn't around billions of years ago when life first began. So...how exactly did we get here?

SkyNews reports that some scientists believe life on our planet originated on Mars. At least that's what Professor Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology theorizes:

"This form of molybdenum couldn't have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did.

"It's yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet."

He added: "Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars; we now believe that the oxidised form of molybdenum was there too."

Another reason why life would have struggled to start on early Earth was that it was likely to have been covered by water, said Prof. Benner.

Rather than toy with the idea that the origin of life might be a little more easily explained than they care to believe, these educated men and women instead dream up even more complex and preposterous explanations. Evidence is only evidence when it supports a presumed conclusion.

Scientists (atheist/agnostic scientists in particular) pride themselves on being open-minded and willing to alter their theories based on new evidence. We Christians (presuppositionalist Christians in particular) realize that is nonsense, because no evidence in the world (or even out of this world) is strong enough to convince someone who is in willful rebellion against God. Why do you think so many people plotted to kill Jesus after witnessing his miracles with their own eyes? So it is today.

Watch 'Evolution vs. God' Online

The documentary Evolution vs. God is now available online. Enjoy!

Evolution vs. God

Available for download on July 9.

Agnostic Astrophysicist Makes the Case Against Theistic Evolution

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, like most agnostic/atheistic scientists, sees no meaning in the universe. Sure, he's fascinated by it, but in the end everything is just a random collection of atoms and energy with no purpose whatsoever.

However, while you watch the following video, pay close attention. He ends up making the perfect case against theistic evolution, pointing out that earth's evolutionary history is marked by death and destruction. That certainly isn't something a loving Creator would consider "good," is it?


(via 22 Words)

Did God Really Say? Yes, But This Is What He Meant...

Are you tired of having to defend the biblical account of creation, especially in light of the undeniable irrefutable solid pretty good generally accepted scientific evidence in support of evolution? Well, there's a new Bible translation just for you:

At last: a Bible you can read without being led astray by teaching of young-earth creationism. The New Compromise Version! This Bible combines readability with the best scholarship of modern uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology. Now you don't have to cross out all the parts of the Bible contradicted by modern science.

Here are a few sample passages:

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first eon.
—Genesis 1:5

And God said, "Let lights in the vault of the sky appear to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let lights appear in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God caused the two great lights to appear as the cloud cover slowly dissipated—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He had also made the stars back in the First Eon long before the Earth. God allowed them to appear in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth eon.
—Genesis 1:14–19

Then after as many years as the number of grains of sand, God said, "Let us make man in our image." So God took one of the animals that had arisen over these ages, which looked like a man but was not, and God breathed His spirit into this creature so that it was changed into a man. In like manner God took a female hominid and made a companion for Adam. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." And it was so. And from this first pair, and from so many others like them, came all the people of the earth.
—Genesis 1:26–28

Be conformed to this world and be transformed by the renewal of your mind towards secular academic thinking.
—Romans 12:2

Imbibe modern philosophy, and make sure you follow the tradition of men according to the rudiments of the world, and accordingly judge the teachings of Christ.
—Colossians 2:8

Check it out!

Scientists: The Big Bang Didn't Need God

According to scientists, the Big Bang didn't need God in order to bring about everything from nothing.

So, rather than believe in some supernatural Creator, we should put our faith in the laws of physics...even though the same laws of physics that tell us what the Big Bang accomplished -- spewing all matter and energy out from an infinitely small point in nonexistent space -- is impossible.

Doug Wilson Responds to Tim Keller's Series on Evolution and Creation

Tim Keller wrote a six-part series of articles for BioLogos entitled "Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople." In those articles he addressed several questions regarding creation and evolution, discussing the relationship of biblical revelation and science.

After reading Keller's series, Doug Wilson had some questions of his own:

Keller does a fine job in stating the most formidable objection to theistic evolution, but then provides no adequate answer for it whatever. He says, "The process of evolution, however, understands violence, predation, and death to be the very engine of how life develops. If God brings about life through evolution, how do we reconcile that with the idea of a good God? The problem of evil seems to be worse for the believer in theistic evolution." If, as I believe, the answer to this dilemma is that we can't, Keller appears to grant this point by default because what I say we can't do, he doesn't do.

The reason for postulating millions of years of life on this planet is to provide an account for the fossil record. But the fossil record is made up entirely of bodies. It is a graveyard record. It is a record of death. But this means that Adam did not bring death into the world -- rather death brought Adam into the world. But Paul says that it was the other way around (Rom. 5:12). Moreover this would mean that God settled on millions of years of "nature red in tooth and claw" as His ideal means of creation -- entirely apart from any sin or rebellion on anyone's part -- and that He looked down on this agonistic morass and pronounced it good. Talk about the problem of evil.

Since the work of the Church in this world is the restoration of Eden, it is worth noting that theistic evolution mandates a complete reversal of the definition of creational good. It turns out that Eden was as bloody as the post fall world. What did we fall into then?

Read Wilson's full post here.

Psalm 19:1

(via St. Eutychus)

The Evolutionist's Unshakable Faith

It appears another nail has been hammered into creationism's coffin. Scientists have discovered the "missing link" -- well, one of about a million missing links, anyway. According to paleontologist Jorn Hurum, this (supposedly) 47-million-year-old lemur-like fossil "is the first link to all humans, the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor."

That's right, folks. After all their painstaking research, this...

...is the closest they've come to proving that apes and humans have a common ancestry.

But we Christians are the ones accused of having a blind faith -- a faith that is rooted in nothing more than warm, fuzzy feelings and wishful thinking. And when we try to defend our belief in a Creator, we're laughed at for ignoring the clear evidence that everything spontaneously emerged from nothing, and that all life evolved from inorganic matter.

Oh, if only our faith was as unshakable as the evolutionist's.

Conjunction Junction, What's Your Function?*

Tonight we will be treated to a rare celestial event: Venus and Jupiter will converge with the crescent moon to form an "unhappy face" in the southern sky. It should be quite a sight.



Some historians believe that a similar conjunction occurred around 2 B.C., inspiring the story of the Star of Bethlehem. This theory typically comes up this time of year to downplay the significance of the events surrounding Christ's birth. But even if we concede that what was witnessed 2,000 years ago was some sort of planetary alignment, we must still conclude that it was nothing short of miraculous since the wise men from the east followed it for about two years (Matthew 2).

So, what is the significance of this event? Nothing...other than the heavens continuing to declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1).


*Hey, give me a break. I grew up on Schoolhouse Rock!

Science in the Bible: The Hydrologic Cycle

Water is the source of all life on earth. The distribution of water, however, is quite varied; many locations have plenty of it while others have very little. Water exists on earth as a solid (ice), liquid or gas (water vapor). Oceans, rivers, clouds, and rain, all of which contain water, are in a frequent state of change (surface water evaporates, cloud water precipitates, rainfall infiltrates the ground, etc.). However, the total amount of the earth's water does not change. The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the "hydrologic cycle."
(From the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)



Job 26:8
"He binds up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not split open under them."

Job 36:27-29
"For he draws up the drops of water; they distill his mist in rain, which the skies pour down and drop on mankind abundantly. Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion?"

Ecclesiastes 1:6-7
"The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again."

Amos 9:6
"Who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founds his vault upon the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the surface of the earth -- the Lord is his name."

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

This amazing 48-minute video gives us a glimpse at just how "fearfully and wonderfully made" we are (Psalm 139:14):

And to think that some people still insist that this kind of genius reflects not the glory of an infinite and all-powerful Creator, but merely the result of a random evolutionary process. As David wrote, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1).