Bill Nye the Science Guy vs. the Bible

Recently the famous “Bill Nye the Science Guy” was in the news. He was in a video that went viral in which he said that creationism should not be taught to children. “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology…its very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates…I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we’ve observed in the universe that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it.”

Almost immediately after Nye slammed the idea that God created all that we see in the universe, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins chimed in. “I don’t think that religion has anything useful to teach us” said Dawkins to a reporter at CNN. He went on to say that evolution is an undeniable fact—“It’s as certain as the fact that the earth and the other planets orbit the sun.”

Well…don’t bet the rent money yet. If you are talking about microevolution, where changes can be seen within a species, yes, evolution is undeniable. You can breed a Chihuahua and a Great Dane and produce a Chi-Dane, but you will still have a dog. Sit Fido—good boy! Macroevolution on the other hand has never, ever been proven. One species has never evolved into another species. There is no evidence anywhere in nature. And experiments in the science lab leave evolutionary scientists moping next to their Bunsen burners.

A belief in evolution is not the result of scientific research as much as it is a philosophy. Belief in evolution is an “a priori” point of view. Harvard’s professor of biology Richard Lewontin let the cat out of the bag when he said, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated…”

Let me translate; “We are not concerned about the facts. The only acceptable theories concerning the origins of life are those that fit in with our preconceived ideas.” Incredible, you say. Yes, indeed. But do all scientists think this way? The answer is, no. There is a very significant group of scientists, biologist, chemists, physicists, and geologists who do not support the idea of macroevolution. Here is a list of those scientists: www.dissentfromdarwin.org. And here is another: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp, and here is still another: http://creation.com/creation-scientists.

 All of these scientists (and there are most likely many more) deny that evolution is “the fundamental idea in all of science” and “as certain as the fact that the other planets orbit the sun.” Two times Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Arno Penzias, said: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” Let me translate again, what he means is: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).”