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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Irony of Ironies

The theory of evolution had to be created.

Proof of Evolution?

Breaking news from New Scientist:

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

OK, so some scientists observed bacteria change slightly over time. The conclusion?:

[T]he experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Hold on there, professor. You started with bacteria and ended with bacteria. I don't think there's a creationist in the world that would question your findings.