Bill Nye ‘The Fake-Science Guy’

Former children’s show host Bill Nye, known popularly as “The Science Guy,” has apparently had it up to his bowtie with us creationist types, posting a video clip on Big Think via YouTube pleading with us dumb hicks to leave the kids out of it. Too bad for him, though, that all of his major points are off the mark.

According to this Yahoo! News/ABC News story, Nye praises the United States for its technological innovation, and says that instead of evolution deniers, “We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.” Well, here’s the thing: Engineering, and technological innovation, and “building stuff,” have nothing, zero, nada, to do with evolution. These things have entirely to do with observational science, which, unlike evolutionary theory, involves experimentation that gives clear, repeatable results right before your very eyes.

Some call this “hard” science: you design and build a machine, or a bridge, or a road, and you test it, and it either works or it doesn’t—if it does, great; if not, you go back and try to figure out what went wrong. There’s theorizing involved, but no philosophizing—if something works, it works, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t, and the results have nothing to do with what you believe about people and the universe and our origins. “Soft” science, on the other hand, is not so conclusive, instead involving a lot of guesswork and conjecture. This is also called historical science, because it deals with things that happened in the past, which means we can’t observe them today, only speculate based on any physical evidence left behind. This type of science, which includes the study of origins, is very much dependent on the worldview you bring to the table—and yes, each of us has a worldview, whether creationist or evolutionist, theistic or atheistic, and it can be difficult to look at things outside the lens of your worldview, but we must all try; we must look at the evidence, not at philosophies, and then determine what theory/worldview/outcome the evidence best fits and points to (more on this below).

Mr. Nye further manifests his confusion over the two types of science when he says, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to, trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates.” Again, here’s the thing: We can see tectonic plates, and we can observe them moving, whereas evolution, even if true, would be unobservable during the relatively short lifespan of humankind—a fact I’ve always found convenient for evolutionists: “Trust us! It does happen!” Sounds like faith, not science.

Some other thoughts:

  • If evolution is so fundamental to all of life science, then why was there so much true scientific progress before Darwin popularized evolution? And how could podunk creationists since Darwin’s time have made scientific discoveries and advances? Louis Pasteur, for example, was a creationist, and his denial of evolution didn’t stop him from being a great scientist. There are also a good deal of eminently qualified physicists, biologists, etc., today who hold to creationism.
  • Nye also says that “the idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent.” The idea of deep time, however, is nothing more than a grown-up’s fantasy that enables the evolutionist to believe in his god: “Give it enough time, and anything can happen!” Actually, no, that’s not the case. Even given the evolutionism-supplied age of the universe of 12-15 billion years, there still would not have been enough time for all the mutations necessary to transition from single-celled organisms to humans, or anything even close to humans. And I fail to see how my belief in divine creationism is crazy, untenable, or inconsistent—it doesn’t cause me to have trouble functioning in my day-to-day life, and I see nothing in the natural world that conclusively demonstrates the evolutionary worldview; in fact, what I observe (not what I postulate) confirms the Biblical account: well-ordered systems (biological, molecular, solar, etc.); each animal kind fully formed and reproducing more of its kind without any major changes; a fossil record and geological strata consistent with a global, catastrophic flood. What, precisely, is crazy, untenable, or inconsistent about any of that? Such characterizations require evidence … but I guess I shouldn’t expect an evolutionist to deal in empirical proof.
  • Said Nye: “You know, in another couple of centuries that worldview (creationism), I’m sure, will be, it just won’t exist. There’s no evidence for it.” Sure, and atheists thought God would be dead and gone by now. As for evidence, check out and, which contain thousands of articles from highly trained and qualified scientists that lend plenty of fuel to the creationism fire.

Best. Obama. Pic. Ever.

Yes. That’s more like it.

The man we know as Barack Hussein Obama is really nothing more than a teleprompter screen written over by a lifelong series of radical leftist handlers who made him the one they wanted him to be. He really isn’t his own person.

Book Review: ‘Jubal Sackett’ a Solid, if Unspectacular, Tale ♦ ♦ ♦ ◊ ◊

The fourth volume in Louis L’Amour’s Sackett series.

My march through Sackett history continues with the fourth volume in the series, this one featuring the title character, who’s one of the sons of Sackett patriarch Barnabas, and the first to head into the wild, unexplored American West.

This book will likely be of interest to anyone curious about the Sackett saga, and though I didn’t find it to be ultra exciting, it’s nonetheless solid—sort of like the Sacketts themselves. This book is longer than most of L’Amour’s, making it of average novel length, and doesn’t contain much, if any, of the excessive description characteristic of many bestselling novelists. L’Amour simply tells you a story—one containing a healthy amount of adventure—and lets the reader’s imagination fill in a lot of the details. At this point in the series, the stories still aren’t what I would call “westerns”—they’re more like wilderness adventures—but the series is heading in that direction.

Rating: ♦ ♦ ♦ ◊ ◊

Book Review: Finding Fear in ‘Salem’s Lot ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

'Salem's Lot

‘Salem’s Lot: another small Maine town with a big secret, courtesy of Stephen King. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is the ninth Stephen King book I’ve read (after The Shining, Cujo, On Writing, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, Blaze, Rose Madder, Under the Dome, and The Eyes of the Dragon), and I rank it as the best piece of fiction in that group (On Writing is nonfiction, and is the best book about writing I’ve ever read).

To be fair, it’s been probably 15 years since I read Cujo and The Shining, and that was before I realized how good a writer King is, before I became a big fan of his work, so I should probably go back and read those two again. Nonetheless, ‘Salem’s Lot is a wonderfully suspenseful piece of writing, a novel about vampires before such a thing was in vogue—written 40 years ago, but way better than Twilight.

I won’t say much about the plot, since you can easily find synopses elsewhere, except to say that King expounds on some themes common to his work—small Maine towns hiding big secrets (but not for long)—while tackling a modern rendition of a literary classic (Dracula). He does so with great success, beginning the book with a scene from near the end of the story to jack up the intrigue level, then going back and artfully setting the scene—characters, places, and a healthy number of well-placed hints at the bad stuff that’s going down (or about to go down).

The pacing in this book is great—it slows a bit after the beginning vignette, but not too much, then King ramps up the action at the right pace, letting out just enough rope at each turn to keep you satisfied while pulling you deeper into the story.

There’s a bit of gore, but it’s necessary, and not overdone. And be warned: King has no problem killing off key characters. Speaking of characters, King’s development of them is spot-on; being a small-town native myself, I’m familiar with rural life, and King’s portraits of small-town people and places are right on the money, not to mention that the personalities he creates here are engaging.

A friend of mine kept looking over his shoulder as he read this book–at night, with all the lights out–and though I didn’t experience that same level of fright, the story held me in its suspenseful grip throughout. If you like a good scare, take a trip to that quaint little Maine town of ‘Salem’s Lot.

Rating: ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Dems’ Race Pandering is Disgusting

It’s disgusting how Democrats continuously play the race card to keep black voters on the plantation (and frustrating that blacks so often let themselves be played this way). The latest example? Vice President (and Dunce-in-Chief) Joe Biden telling an audience that Republican financial policies will “put y’all back in chains.”

So first you take on a fake accent (that of an Old South plantation owner), and then you make a clear reference to black slavery.

Wow. Really, massa? You mean dem ’publicans got it out fuh us? All dey ideas ’bout workin’ hawd and earnin’ yo’ way and not milkin’ da system is jus’ mo’ of dem evil capalist notions?

Yes, y’all. That it is.

Yes, racism is real, and it’s still alive in this country, but most people, from what I can tell, are not racist. And it’s time we all consider just what racism entails—it’s not just whites hating blacks because they’re black, or blacks hating Hispanics because they’re Hispanic; it’s also blacks voting for a black man simply because he’s (half) black, and it’s politicians keeping blacks on entitlements so said blacks will keep voting for said politicians.

Put y’all back in chains? Come on. Blacks have been in chains to Democrats for years, offering up their votes in exchange for continued freebies that come at someone else’s expense, mortgaging their opportunity to chase the American dream in exchange for political slavery.

In response to a GOP uproar over Biden’s remark, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said the campaign has “no problem” with the veep’s words, and further rationalized the situation by saying, “If you want to talk about the use of words, then take a look at Mitt Romney’s stump speech where he basically calls the president un-American.”

So it’s tit for tat, then? Two wrongs make a right? Is that the mature ways to handle things? Besides, the issue of Obama’s “Americanness” depends on how you define what’s “American” and “un-American.” If, by “American,” you mean “taking what you didn’t earn, from someone who did earn it,” then yes, Romney is wrong and Obama is totally “American.”

If, on the other hand, you define “American” as “having equal opportunity to make something of your life, the result being mostly up to you,” then Romney has never been more right in his life.

Obama’s Snobbishness and Cowardice Concerning Abortion

You know, the good thing about the upcoming election (besides the possibility of getting rid of Obama) is that his true colors are more and more coming out—he really does favor amnesty, and he really does support same-sex marriage, and, as he revealed in a fem-nazi speech yesterday in Denver, he really does favor allowing women to have their unborn children sucked and pulled out of them.

Speaking to a crowd of ultrafems, with a sign on the podium reading “Women’s Health Security,” Obama made clear what he means when he speaks of “women’s health”: abortion (specifically, his belief that women should be allowed to have them).

Obama never used the word, so far as I could find, but he kept referring to a woman’s “right” to make her own “health care choices,” even declaring: “When it comes to a woman’s right to make her own health care choices, they (Romney and other Republicans) want to take us back to the policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.”

So not only is Obama displaying the chronological snobbishness (“the more modern something is, the better it is”) typical of the left, he’s also putting his cowardice on display, refusing to call a spade a spade—after all, what other “choice” concerning “women’s health care” do we ever talk about?

Mr. President, just say what you mean. Just say that you believe that the Constitution says women have an actual, undeniable right to kill their children in the womb—even though it doesn’t. Just say that you believe that abortion is necessary—even though only approximately 1-2% of abortions are the result of rape or incest, meaning 98-99% of them are due to sheer laziness and irresponsibility.

And what, pray tell, was so bad about the ’50s? I wasn’t alive then, but from what the older generations tell me, that was a pretty good decade—rock ’n’ roll, drive-in movie theaters, a society that was generally a heck of a lot more wholesome. Outside of a few real political reforms (e.g. black civil rights) and a lot of our technological advances (e.g. Internet, cell phones, improved medicine), I fail to see how the present time is better than the 1950s. Back then, people weren’t walking into movie theaters and temples loaded for bear, foreign terrorists weren’t bombing us, and most people weren’t acting as though there’s absolutely nothing wrong or out of the ordinary about two guys getting “married” or a woman murdering her unborn child.

And when, oh when, Mr. President, will you and other “progressives” realize that an abortion affects not only the woman’s body, but the baby’s as well?

%d bloggers like this: