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.

Sorry, Arminians, but free will may just be the brain's 'background noise'

OK, so the title is tongue-in-cheek. Mostly. But consider this report from Live Science:

It's a question that has plagued philosophers and scientists for thousands of years: Is free will an illusion?

Now, a new study suggests that free will may arise from a hidden signal buried in the "background noise" of chaotic electrical activity in the brain, and that this activity occurs almost a second before people consciously decide to do something.

Though "purposeful intentions, desires and goals drive our decisions in a linear cause-and-effect kind of way, our finding shows that our decisions are also influenced by neural noise within any given moment," study co-author Jesse Bengson, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Davis, wrote in an email to Live Science. "This random firing, or noise, may even be the carrier upon which our consciousness rides, in the same way that radio static is used to carry a radio station."

So it would seem Calvinism is backed up by scripture and science! :)

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.

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.

Artificial "Life"?

Scientists believe that artificial life is possible within five years. From the New York Times:

Laboratories across the world are closing in on a "second genesis" -- an achievement that would be one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of all time.

Prof David Deamer, from California University, said although building a new lifeform from scratch is a daunting task he is confident it can happen in five to 10 years.

He said: "The momentum is building -- we're knocking at the door."

A synthetic, made-to-order living system could produce everything from new drugs to biofuels and greenhouse gas absorbers.

Opponents of the controversial research claim the technology could lead to machines becoming "almost human".

I found this story especially interesting in light of Darrell's post yesterday, as well as the recent story of a fertility clinic offering designer babies.

A few things jumped out at me as I read this. First, these scientists must have some kind of God-complex to believe they actually can (or even should) create life. Second, in order to create even a single living cell, they must first start with organic building blocks. So, in reality, they aren't creating anything; they are merely altering existing living material. Third, you and I both know that any "life" generated through these experiments will be held in higher esteem than the human embryos already being sacrificed in the name of science.

Therein lies the irony. On one hand, attempting to "create" artificial life is deemed a worthy cause, and any success would most certainly be heralded as a breakthrough. On the other hand, deliberately destroying human life through experimentation is considered noble because it's for the "greater good," whatever that may be. (As Darrell pointed out, it's very difficult to escape the comparisons with Nazism when discussing these kinds of issues.)

In a worldview that believes it is possible to make moral judgments without an absolute moral standard, these are the kinds of glaring inconsistencies that arise. Sadly, too many people are willing to just live with them rather than try to resolve them.

Stem Cells and the Mythology of Science

While Americans increasingly distrust and detest the politicians and assorted babblers among the chattering classes, they are prone still to swallow the mythology of science. According to the purveyors of this myth with science all things are possible. Sickness, disease, even death can be abolished. Life can be created along with new organs, arms and legs grown by these magicians in lab coats. All that’s needed is your tax money and a complete lack of scruples.

On March 9th, President Obama issued an executive order allowing federal funds to be used on the experimentation of babies. This represents the complicity and imprimatur of the United States in the Mengelesque destruction of life in the name of “science” (Yes, I’m aware that Nazi references are typically out of bounds as a tool of debate. But do you have a better name for this?).

It may sound strange, but this mindset is a product of Darwinian presuppositions. Evolutionists are attempting to reverse God’s order in creation. The orthodox Christian affirms that a sovereign, omnipotent God created the universe. Evolutionists turn this on its head by insisting that an autonomous, omnipotent impersonal force, i.e., chance, led to the development of a new sovereign god—the scientist. While initially enthroning blind chance and cosmic purposelessness the evolutionist eliminates God and by default man evolves toward divinity. No longer constrained by a transcendent law man is then beyond good and evil, beyond morality and therefore can justify murder in the name of science.

I Now Know Why I Believe in God

It's genetic.

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."