CMI Rebuts Nye

Creation Ministries International has produced a video in response to Bill Nye’s somewhat-incoherent, anti-creationist blubbering. Something that struck me about Nye’s video is how unprepared he seems, as though he just plunked himself down in front of a camera on the spur of the moment without any prior thought as to what he was going to say. Then again, I’d think that someone who calls himself “The Science Guy” and has lots of TV experience should be able to rattle off an informed little speech anytime, but I guess not—perhaps because his position is indefensible?

Advertisements

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 Creation.com and Answersingenesis.org, which contain thousands of articles from highly trained and qualified scientists that lend plenty of fuel to the creationism fire.

Of Mermaids and Men

Merman, Colmar, France Musée d' Unterlinden

Look, Ma! No feet! … (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Animal Planet recently aired a program called Mermaids: The Body Found, presenting as a documentary what belongs in the realm of the imagination. From an Answers in Genesis article on the program:

Mermaids advanced an idea known as the “aquatic ape hypothesis” (AAH), called the “aquatic ape theory” in the program. First proposed by a German pathologist in 1942, the idea has been met with much skepticism in the scientific community, although it is supported by a respectable number of laypeople. This view claims that our alleged ancestors went through a watery stage in our evolutionary development where, according to the show, “our ability to walk fully upright first evolved, wading in the shallows where food was easily found.” Our supposed ape-like ancestors started living near the oceans, and the narrator informs viewers that “this is where our advanced intelligence began to develop” thanks to the “brain-building nutrients” like iodine and fatty acids so abundant in the shellfish gathered there. Due to earthquakes and volcanic activity along the coasts, “some of our ancestors pulled back, heading inland, [but] others did not . . . If our distant ancestors spent time living in the sea, is it possible that one group split off from the rest? And rather than retreating from the water, did they go deeper in?”

Utterly ridiculous. Anyone who follows my blog knows of my disagreement with evolutionary theory, and what these people are proposing just further illustrates the problem: They’re saying that because a group of people took to living near the water, and spending a lot of time in the water hunting food, their DNA produced a series of mutations whereby each person’s two legs became one scaly, fishlike appendage complete with fins. This, of course, is on top of the presumption that merpeople ever existed.

As the above excerpt points out, most of the scientific community (to its credit) is skeptical about the alleged “human-merman” connection, but the truth is that the entire evolutionary paradigm* is just as ludicrous as any man-merman hypothesis: something (the universe) coming from nothing, without any outside help; life coming from nonlife, without any outside help; the development of single-celled organisms into ever-more-complex life forms, all the way up to the uber-complex human being, by a process (mutation) that doesn’t add novel genetic information but instead degrades and destroys much of what’s already there, causing a loss in genetic information. All of these things defy basic principles of logic; you can’t bring matter into existence (creation ex nihilo), and you can’t create life, and you can’t build ever-more-complex structures using material that’s continuously breaking down.

Unless, of course, you’re God. He can bring a universe into existence. He can bring life into being. He can animate earthen sculptures with souls, each one a fully formed original, and sustain them through numerous genetic breakdowns and environmental decay.

And He can bring us to our final, perfect, eternal home, beyond the reach of all trouble.

* By evolutionary paradigm, I mean not only the theory of evolution—which is limited to biological lifeforms and the genetic changes associated with them—but also the typical evolutionist/atheist beliefs about the origins of life and the universe.

The Absurdity of Evolutionary Thought

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia

Anti-evolution car in Athens, Georgia. … (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I believe in creationism, not evolution, so of course there are many things about evolution I find absurd, but perhaps most absurd are the origins arguments evolutionists propose.

To begin at the broadest point, evolution posits that somehow something came from nothing—literally. Somehow, according to the theory, the universe exploded into existence where there previously had been not just a void (which is something), but nothing at all, no material existence. To narrow things a bit more, evolution says life sprang from nonlife, that a pool of chemicals (and who knows where those came from) produced some sort of reaction that in turn produced the first living organism, like Frankenstein’s monster rising from a pile of lifeless, stitched-together body parts.

Something from nothing. Life from nonlife. Without any outside assistance or intervention.

Completely absurd.

But it gets even better. I’ll presume, for the sake of argument, that this primordial soup of chemicals did produce the first living organism, some sort of single-celled creature. This life form would have to be self-replicating, which is reasonable (such organisms exist today), but where would it get the genetic information to produce anything but more single-celled organisms like itself? Did random mutations produce new information? Impossible; mutations do not produce new info—in fact, any mutations would result only in a loss of genetic information, so the only thing the single-celled organism could produce would be more versions of itself, and genetically degraded ones at that. Thus, without outside assistance or intervention, no new information would be available, which means no other life forms could ever have arisen.

Evolutionists often enjoy mocking Biblical, creationist thinking, but if God is God, He can do anything. More to the point, He can do all the things that atheistic, evolutionary thinking can’t account for: create something out of nothing, create life from nonlife, and create all the basic kinds of creatures, each kind independent of the others but with enough built-in genetic flexibility to produce the great variety of species we see in the world today.

Creation.com: An Excellent Resource

Genesis : Creation of Eve; marble relief on th...

The creation of Eve from Adam's rib, as depicted on an Italian cathedral. ... (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I just wanted to give a quick plug for a favorite resource of mine: Creation.com, online home of Creation Ministries International.

I receive no funding, advertising or other form of sponsorship from CMI, and I have no official affiliation with it—I’m just a big fan of their work, and refer to it quite often in my columns here on my site. CMI is one of the leading Young Earth Creationist organizations in the world, dedicated to showing, through the sciences, the accuracy, validity and literalness of the Genesis creation account.

CMI is staffed with many highly qualified scientists who know their stuff—scientifically and Biblically. And since I’m already talking about CMI, let me recommend to you today’s featured article at Creation.com, one that illustrates an important point in the fight against evolutionary thought. Enjoy!

Hatred of God is Atheists’ True Motivation

Adam Sedgwick, 1867

Adam Sedgwick (1867)—not a God-hater. ... (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I just came across this quote from 19th-century creationist geologist Adam Sedgwick:

“From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked up … . And why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, except to make us independent of a Creator.”

Sedgwick wrote this around 1861 after he read Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and that last line struck me, a fresh reminder of something I’ve long thought: the driving force for atheism and atheists is not the belief that there is no God, but the desire for there to be no God.

I can’t say with 100% certainty that I’ve ever had a personal encounter with an atheist who truly, honestly believed there’s no God. I find it intriguing that my interactions with atheists have always revealed not a genuine disbelief in God but a genuine dislike of God—in fact, a genuine disdain for the very idea of God.

This makes sense. For people who want to do what they want to do, God is a great inconvenience. For people who want no ultimate accountability, the eradication of God is the key to a happy existence—at least, what they think will be a happy existence. Sure, there’s no “empirical” evidence for God, but there’s none of that against Him, either, and so it really is a question of faith, regardless of which side of the question you come down on … but it seems to me that it would take a great deal more faith to follow the path of atheism, to believe that order and logic, and life itself, came about accidentally, with no mind initiating and propelling the process—and I think it far less likely for such a faith to be an atheist’s motivation as opposed to pure, unadulterated dislike of God.

In fact, I think it’s impossible—yes, I said it—impossible for a person to have a genuine, authentic, nonselfish, non-“dislike of God”-inspired atheistic faith. If you’re an atheist, it’s not because you truly believe there’s no God, it’s because you don’t want for there to be a God. I base this, of course, on personal experience, for it seems that every atheist I’ve met—while claiming that there is no God—is nonetheless angry at God. And how can you be angry at Someone who doesn’t exist?

I also base my belief, of course, on what the Bible says. Psalm 14:1 states: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’ “; I’ve always taken this to mean that you’d have to be blind to not see that God is real—in other words, that you could mistakenly but naively believe there’s no God; like, a person who’s just clueless—but now I’m wondering if it refers to something else: The one who, for purely selfish reasons, has turned his back on what he knows to be true. That would be true foolishness.

P.S.: After seeing this photo of Sedgwick, I can totally picture him saying the above quote, with just the right amount of crotchetiness and humorous disdain, and I imagine he was a cool old curmudgeon—in the best sense of the word. =)

The Danger of Evolutionary Thinking

King James Version of the Bible

The Bible: Read it; you might be pleasantly surprised. ... Image via Wikipedia

There’s a great post today on Creation.com delving into the life of famous paleontologist Louis Leakey. Though some of his work was controversial, he became the patriarch of “the first family of paleontology,” and was an ardent Darwinist … even though he grew up as the son of Christian missionaries and once aspired to become a missionary, sometimes (as the story notes) even standing on a soapbox as a young man at Boscombe and preaching to passers-by. The crux of the story is that he gave up all that in favor of Darwinian evolution. The article puts it best:

Louis Leakey’s life played out on the world stage a tragedy which is, sadly, all too common. So often, godly parents fail to see that the ‘science’ teaching that their offspring are imbibing is all within a framework that rejects Bible history. It is based on a philosophical belief system that rejects direct divine action. But the Bible’s history is foundational to the Gospel. So it is not surprising that such students usually end up rejecting their childhood belief—especially those brighter ones who can spot the inconsistencies of putting ‘faith’ and ‘reality’ in two separate boxes.

If only such parents were to arm and equip their family with a biblical worldview, one which lets them connect the evidence of the real world to the Bible, what a difference such real science would make!

Louis Leakey died in London on 3 October 1972, aged 69. As with all of us, his choices were relevant to both his temporal and his eternal destiny. Honoured by the world which is ‘passing away’, he missed being ‘the man who does the will of God’ and who ‘lives for ever’ (1 John 2:17).

Contrary to what theistic evolutionists believe, there’s no Biblical evidence for God utilizing evolution, and contrary to what evolutionists believe, Christians are not against true science. People like myself believe that true science lines up with what the Bible teaches—not because we force it to, but because it really does. And evolution, uniformitarianism, millions of years, and the notion of “pre-Adamite apemen” are not true science. They come entirely from a worldview that hates God and seeks to exclude Him—even annihilate the idea of Him, if it were possible. Molecules-to-man, goo-to-you evolution has never been empirically demonstrated—and honestly, I think that if evolutionists were shown the skeleton of Yao Ming next to the skeleton of Verne Troyer, they’d think they were looking at two species instead of one, and that’s pretty much the story with all of evolutionary theory; uniformitarianism is based on a false, non-evidence-based assumption that things have always been as they are now; the idea of “millions of years” for the history of the universe was proposed largely to accommodate the notion that evolutionary change requires huge amounts of time, but again, evolutionary theory is simply a bunch of “just-so” stories for the convenience of evolutionists’ God-hate; and the idea of “pre-Adamites” or “apemen” is the result of Christians or other theists compromising their theistic beliefs in an attempt to gain acceptance from secular society.

Parents need to know this stuff, and they need to be teaching it to their kids. The truth is out there; we just need to make it known.

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: