AIG answers Bill Nye - Bill Nye's Crusade for Your Kids

“Bill Nye the Science Guy”® of PBS-TV fame1 is crusading to capture your children’s minds for evolution. His recent YouTube video “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children”—viewed over 2.3 million times during its first week online—has revealed his strong evolutionary bias and his own blind spot. Nye pleads with adults to keep their creationism to themselves. “Bill Nye the Science Guy® wants to make sure your kids believe evolution as fact,” explains Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham. “Be warned—he is out to get your kids for evolution. Watching this short video, you will see that he shows no understanding of the difference between historical science and observational science. He really should be called ‘Bill Nye—the evolution guy.’” And if you (like Nye) are a little fuzzy on the difference between these two approaches to scientific inquiry, please keep reading!

In this second YouTube video, Ken Ham responds to intolerant Bill Nye defenders who did not like that our YouTube videos had the comments disabled (3:26 minutes).
Nye’s programs seen on PBS-TV and elsewhere have for years done a marvelous job of explaining experimental (operational, or observational) science to children. Parents and teachers have been delighted to see youngsters who watch them get excited about science. Experimental science is the kind of science that invents new technology, figures out how things work, and finds cures for disease. However, some of Nye’s programs have ventured into historical (or origins) science—the kind of science that draws conclusions about the untestable, unrepeatable, unobservable past. And his conclusions about our origins are based on his worldview, a secular (humanistic) worldview2 with a prior commitment to reject the eyewitness account God provided in the Bible. For instance, I recall watching his program about dinosaurs with my children. In it he and his assistant repeatedly declared that dinosaurs did not live at the same time as people.3 Yet God reported in Genesis that He created all kinds of land animals on the same day He created Adam and Eve, and dinosaurs are land animals. Who are we to believe, Bill Nye (who wasn’t there, knows next to nothing when compared with all there is to know, and makes mistakes) or God (who was there and knows all things, and never makes mistakes)?
Nye indicates that today’s children must believe in evolution if our country is to remain tomorrow’s leader in technology. Curiously, after saying that “denial of evolution is unique to the United States” (an erroneous statement, by the way, as we show in our video response to Nye) he went on to say the United States has the world’s most advanced technology due to “the general understanding of science,” equating understanding science with believing in evolution. Then he added, “When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.” But Nye fails to address how our country, held back by a contingent of evolution-denying people, could ever have risen to such a glorious technological height in the first place.
Next, Nye—who holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, which is in the realm of operational, not historical, science—made another erroneous statement. He said, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.” This is of course reminiscent of the popular but mythical Darwinian aphorism, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”4 The most fundamental law that is observable in biology, the law of biogenesis, indicates that life only arises from living things. Yet evolutionists like Nye claim life randomly created itself from non-living elements. Despite this blatant contradiction between Nye’s statement and this incontrovertible law of observational biological science and the fact that scientists have never observed life coming from non-life, Nye considers evolution the most fundamental of biological laws.

Bill Nye did make a brief (two minute) trip to the Creation Museum property in January 2011 while in the area for a speaking engagement. Sadly, he did not choose to tour the Museum or even to come inside. Since the lobby of the museum features animatronic children and dinosaurs together—a strict violation of a principle taught on a Nye television program—he would have doubtless not found it to his taste. Had he toured, however, and perhaps spent some time speaking with any of Answers in Genesis scientists holding earned doctoral degrees in geology, astronomy, medicine, cell biology, molecular genetics and the history of geology, perhaps he would have respected, if not the biblical basis for creation, at least the scientific basis for the positions creation scientists take. Or perhaps not. At any rate, Nye did not avail himself of that opportunity but only drove onto the museum property, snapped a photo, and left. So much for honest, intellectual (really, scientific) investigation before drawing conclusions!
In a follow-up interview with CBS, Nye said, “Religion is one thing, but science, provable science is something else.”5 Indeed, science and religion—or biblical Christianity in this instance—are not the same, yet if both reveal truth, they will not conflict. Nye went on to further demonstrate his lack of discernment concerning the difference between experimental science and historical science as he elaborated on what he considers “provable science.” He said, “My concern is you don’t want people growing up not believing in radioactivity, not believing in geology and deep time. You don’t want people in the United Sates growing up without the expectation that we can land spacecraft on Mars. You want people to believe in science, this process, this great idea that humans had to discover more about the universe and our place in it, our place in space.”5 As a tour of the Creation Museum or a serious reading of articles and books featured on the Answers in Genesis website and bookstore will reveal, however, creation scientists do “believe in” geology and radioactivity and space exploration. What we as biblical creationists do not accept are interpretations of geological, biological, anthropological, genetic, astronomical, and radiometric data that are based on unverifiable assumptions about the past and deny God’s eyewitness account of events (e.g., Creation Week, the Fall of man, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel).
“Provable science” is performed in the present. Historical science involves interpreting scientific data through the filter of what you already believe about the unobservable past. Nye reminds us in his video that Carl Sagan was one of his college professors. Nye’s worldview accords with Sagan’s, who believes, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”6 Sagan and Nye were not present during “deep time,” nor was any other scientist. “Deep time” cannot therefore be subject to “provable science.” Their declarations about “deep time” (their interpretations of scientific data) are based on their prior commitment to believe that there could be no Creator and that the Bible is untrue, a commitment nicely summarized by another famous evolutionist, Richard Lewontin. Lewontin wrote the following:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. 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 mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.7
And what in the Bible’s account does Nye find so difficult to accept? He provided an example in another interview, saying, “The bible, as translated into English, claims that the Sun lights the day, and the Moon lights the night. . . . To my ear, it doesn’t seem as though the author realized that the Moon’s light is reflected sunlight.”5 Yet biblical creationists do not think the moon produces its own light, the biblical text does not state or even imply that, and Bible-believing Christians do not teach their children that. Nye is imposing a nonsensical meaning to the words of Scripture and to the beliefs of creation scientists (whether concerning the nature of the moon or the possibilities of space exploration) and then mocking them. So much for careful, accurate, intellectual debate.

Bill Nye, the charismatic “Science Guy” of PBS-TV fame, keeps busy these days crusading for science literacy. Nye is pictured here delivering a May 2012 lecture at Ohio State University (where Answers in Genesis speaker and researcher Georgia Purdom earned her PhD in molecular genetics). The previous year he dropped by the Creation Museum property but opted not to enter or speak with the staff. Unfortunately, he erroneously equates science literacy with believing evolutionary dogma. Image courtesy of Doobie Jefferson.8
Nye said in his video, “Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. . . . The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us.” Evolutionary belief, however, is a worldview that attempts without any corroborating eyewitness account to explain the origin of life and all things without a Creator. This “deep time” is extrapolated from, as Nye said in the video, “ancient dinosaur bones or fossils . . . radioactivity . . . [and] distant stars,” but it is an interpretation of observed data based entirely on anti-biblical and unverifiable assumptions about the past.
Time, for evolutionists, is “the hero of the plot.”9 Time—“billions of years” Nye claims—“explains so much.” Actually, time doesn’t explain anything. Evolutionary beliefs represent an attempt to explain the origin of life by assuming that given enough time anything can randomly create itself. Yet evolutionary beliefs cannot explain the origin of life from non-living elements through undirected natural processes. This is because evolutionary beliefs—those beliefs Nye asserts our children must accept—offer no natural observable process that can explain the origin of genetic information (stored in the DNA molecule of every plant, animal, and human) through random natural processes. Furthermore, evolutionary scientists have not been able to produce any undisputed transitional fossil forms to substantiate their contention that organisms evolved from simpler kinds, much less explain how the first living cell could arise in the first place.10
Time doesn’t solve these problems; in fact, time is an enemy of evolution, because the more time you have, the more mutations there are, which destroy functional genetic information. But evolutionists continue to assure us that their conclusions about the unobservable past are factual. Since we exist, they believe we must have gotten here through evolution. How? Because, they think, over “billions of years” anything—even things we never observe in the present—could happen.
And where do Nye and fellow evolutionists find those billions of years? “Here is radioactivity. Here are distant stars,” Nye says. Yet a close look at “distant stars” reveals a variety of stars but not how they got there. Big bang cosmology suffers from significant scientific problems of its own.11 Likewise, radiometric dating methods are based on a series of demonstrably faulty assumptions and often produce unreliable and inconsistent results. (See Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics, Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, and Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns to learn more.) And Nye’s “ancient dinosaur bones or fossils” are dated based on the radiometric dates of nearby rock layers. And evolutionists seem unwilling to use the dating methods that could expose the myth of millions of years for the age of those dinosaurs bones.12 Even molecular dating in genetics is based on presumed mutation rates, the untenable belief that mutations can create new genetic information, and the evolutionary dates already assigned to fossils. Evolution appears to “explain so much” because evolutionary reasoning is circular.
On the other hand, God’s Word provides an eyewitness account of our origins and of events—such as the global Flood—that make sense of the world around us. Animals and plants reproduce after their kinds, just as Genesis describes. They produce incredible variety within each kind, but one kind doesn’t change into a different kind. And the geologic column makes sense as a record of the catastrophic burial of countless organisms during the cataclysmic destruction of habitats all over the world by Noah’s Flood. (Read more in Chapter 31: Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?)
Nye’s belief that “billions . . . explains so much” is based on circular reasoning and unverifiable assumptions. God’s Word, however, explains our origins, what we see in the world, and even why we are the intelligent yet sinful creatures we are—all on the authority of the God who has always been here and always tells the truth. Nye claims, “There is no evidence for it”—God’s explanation for what we see. But he is wrong. The evidence affirming God’s explanation is all around us and even beneath our feet in the fossil record (Romans 1:18–20). And it’s also in our conscience (Romans 2:14–16).
Nye predicts gloom and doom for our country if we don’t train up our children to accept evolution. He claims acceptance of evolutionary beliefs is essential if they are to be “scientifically literate voters and taxpayers . . . engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.” Yet engineers build technological solutions for today’s problems and physicians discover the causes and cures for diseases and deformities by “doing science” in the present world—making observations, developing and testing hypotheses, trying out their ideas repeatedly in controlled circumstances. It is irrational and unscientific to think that the technology was made by intelligent engineers, but the bodies of the engineers and all other living creatures were made by a blind, purposeless, directionless process called evolution.
Furthermore, scientific progress does not rely on acceptance of evolution. (In fact, as retired internist and creationist Dr. Tommy Mitchell discusses in “Evolution and Medicine,” evolutionary beliefs can actually hinder medical progress. The remarkable accomplishments of eminent Johns Hopkins physician and creationist Dr. Benjamin Carson is a recent testimony to the fact that acceptance of molecules-to-man evolution is unnecessary for medical progress, even in an area where evolutionists claim to have great insight—development defects. (Read about the controversy surrounding Dr. Carson’s statements about both science and the logical basis for morality in News to Note, May 26, 2012.)
Nye’s mission is to “foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work.”13 Science literacy includes the ability to discern the difference between experimental science that draws conclusions based on observable, testable, controllable, repeatable investigations—“the science that makes our world work”—and historical, or origins, science which tries to reconstruct the unobserved past. Our world is already here. We cannot go back and test or observe its origins. And accepting the worldview of those who reject the eyewitness account of the Creator of the universe does not improve anyone’s ability to build things that work, only their ability to spin more just-so mythological stories about the past.
Be sure to catch Ken Ham’s comments in yesterday’s blog post, “Time is Nye for rebuttal.” There Ken reminds readers why we care what children are taught about God their Creator. Ken wrote the folowing:
We teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes—and where they came from. And we tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life, and that they were created for a purpose. Our Creator loves us, even while we are sinners (for we have all sinned in Adam). Christ paid the penalty for our sin and offers a free gift of salvation. No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God.”
We’ve heard in Nye’s video why he says he cares what children believe. Nye’s worldview rejects the Creator’s Word revealed in the Bible as the ultimate basis for determining right and wrong, good and bad. In Nye’s worldview, therefore, each individual determines what is good and desirable, what is a disservice to children and to the country, and even what sort of things he should care about. By claiming to represent what is “best” for kids and to tell parents what is the “right” thing to do, Nye is really borrowing from a “biblical” worldview. (See Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview for more about this distinction.)
But let’s listen to what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16–17), says about how the way we view God’s testimony in Genesis (recorded by Moses) affects the way we view Him, our Savior. Jesus said the following:
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My word? (John 5:46–47)
And let’s listen to what He said about children.
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:1–6)
Woe to Christian or non-Christian evolutionists who destroy children’s faith in Christ and His Word.
What we teach children does make a difference. That’s why God’s Word in Proverbs 22:6 commands us to “train up a child in the way he should go.” In fact, biblically sound instruction is not to be reserved for Sunday morning alone. God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 6:6–9 that His Word should be a part of every aspect of their children’s lives, diligently taught. And Paul commended Timothy’s mother and grandmother when he remarked, “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, on the ground of biblical authority, Christian parents today who heed Nye’s advice, encourage their children to accept evolution, and keep their biblical beliefs to themselves are abdicating their God-given responsibility, robbing their children of God’s best, and endangering their eternal well-being.
Don’t miss watching and sharing the Answers in Genesis video “Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children” rebutting Nye on YouTube. It features Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom. Dr. Purdom has a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University and was a biology professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Menton has a PhD in cell biology from Brown University. He is an Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine where he trained medical students for 34 years before retiring to come work for Answers in Genesis. They are clearly qualified to share their insights on creation science and science education, being experienced professionals at the highest levels of their fields. Watch their video and please share it with others who might be deceived by the charismatic Science Guy’s “smoke and mirrors” reasoning.

Listen to veteran educators Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom share their insights about Bill Nye’s claims on this YouTube video prepared especially to respond to Nye’s crusade to capture kids for evolution.
For more information about some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation see Creation scientists and other biographies of interest. Scientists like those on staff at Answers in Genesis, those on this list, Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Benjamin Carson (mentioned above), and many others stand on the shoulders of some of the “greats” in the history of science—like Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell. These men believed in a Creator God and expected to find His orderly handiwork in the world of science. Despite Bill Nye’s assertions, a worldview that honors God as Creator of the universe and the physical laws in it did not hold these scientists back at all but rather was the very foundation on which they built their scientific understanding.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/08/30/bill-nye-crusade-for-your-kids

[cammibear]

Yes it was. :)

I take it you are bored with this thread. Me too and I'm only on page 10 of the comments.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

Good god that was a big tree wasn't it?

Sorry I can't quote you but those was the only way. Well maybe not for someone with more patience or smart phone ability.





Anyway, then everything else is also uniquely created because it took such an amazing to create all of the wacky things knocking around out there.

[cammibear]

I get what you are saying, I really do. But how reliable can it "really" be, when it is ever-changing?

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumption

Not exactly.

Science makes the assumption that we do not NEED to assume the supernatural, in order to explain the things we can observe.   Or, to put it another way, it limits itself to finding the sorts of explanations that it can back up with objective evidence (which rules out the supernatural).  In this respect, evolution is just like all the rest of science.

Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you,
if you have already placed conditions on what that evidence can and
cannot be, or where that evidence can or cannot take you.



You are exactly correct though. This is exactly how evolutionists do
science. They interpret all data through their presuppositions,
including the presumption that there is no God, and including the
presumption that they can come to a logical conclusion apart from God,
even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge
comes from.

This is exactly how scientists do science.   In all areas of science.

Yes, science does limit itself to considering only objective evidence, evidence whose reliability can be demonstrated to two different third parties in a way that both third parties can agree how reliable or unreliable to evidence is.

It is BECAUSE science has standards for evidence that it has produced a track record of reliability that beats any other method of modelling reality known to man.

Quoting cammibear:

even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.

It doesn't try to.  Neither does the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease.

[cammibear]

I wanted to add one thing. Not all scientists have the same atheistic presuppositions that evolutionists do. They will not interpret data through the same axioms.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumption

Not exactly.

Science makes the assumption that we do not NEED to assume the supernatural, in order to explain the things we can observe.   Or, to put it another way, it limits itself to finding the sorts of explanations that it can back up with objective evidence (which rules out the supernatural).  In this respect, evolution is just like all the rest of science.

Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you,
if you have already placed conditions on what that evidence can and
cannot be, or where that evidence can or cannot take you.



You are exactly correct though. This is exactly how evolutionists do
science. They interpret all data through their presuppositions,
including the presumption that there is no God, and including the
presumption that they can come to a logical conclusion apart from God,
even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge
comes from.

This is exactly how scientists do science.   In all areas of science.

Yes, science does limit itself to considering only objective evidence, evidence whose reliability can be demonstrated to two different third parties in a way that both third parties can agree how reliable or unreliable to evidence is.

It is BECAUSE science has standards for evidence that it has produced a track record of reliability that beats any other method of modelling reality known to man.

Quoting cammibear:

even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.

It doesn't try to.  Neither does the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease.

[romalove]

 

Quoting cammibear:

I wanted to add one thing. Not all scientists have the same atheistic presuppositions that evolutionists do. They will not interpret data through the same axioms.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumption

Not exactly.

Science makes the assumption that we do not NEED to assume the supernatural, in order to explain the things we can observe.   Or, to put it another way, it limits itself to finding the sorts of explanations that it can back up with objective evidence (which rules out the supernatural).  In this respect, evolution is just like all the rest of science.

Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you,
if you have already placed conditions on what that evidence can and
cannot be, or where that evidence can or cannot take you.



You are exactly correct though. This is exactly how evolutionists do
science. They interpret all data through their presuppositions,
including the presumption that there is no God, and including the
presumption that they can come to a logical conclusion apart from God,
even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge
comes from.

This is exactly how scientists do science.   In all areas of science.

Yes, science does limit itself to considering only objective evidence, evidence whose reliability can be demonstrated to two different third parties in a way that both third parties can agree how reliable or unreliable to evidence is.

It is BECAUSE science has standards for evidence that it has produced a track record of reliability that beats any other method of modelling reality known to man.

 

 

Quoting cammibear:

even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.

It doesn't try to.  Neither does the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease.

 

 What does this mean?

Scientists don't have "atheist" presuppositions.  They also don't have religious presuppositions. 

You don't understand science or scientists, at all, in large part because you only listen to people who declare themselves to be scientists but who have abandoned any pretense of science or scientific thinking because it doesn't jive with their religious beliefs. 

 

[12hellokitty]

Sorry not trying to come off defensive, I am just not clear on what you specifically oppose regarding evolution and what makes it incomparable with your beliefs.

Quoting cammibear:

Again, I'm not sure why you seem to be on the defense. I'm not asking you to agree. I thought, since you are a bible believing Christian, it would be an interesting discussion. I never claimed to have all the answers. I think macroevolution contradicts "god created".

Quoting 12hellokitty:

I can agree that scripture is the infallible knowledge of God, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the way creationist interpret scripture, unless they can show where in the bible they have been given authority to interpret scripture.

Quoting cammibear:

Based on man's fallible logic. Scripture is the infallible knowledge of God. Gee...which to trust? ;)







We have a friend who is a molecular biologist. For years was an evolutionist, but is now a Creationist because of the evidence.

Quoting stringtheory:

The problem with this stance, is that science tests likely theories that are based on logic, not scripture. Creationism is a "science" that came into play with a subjective hypothesis; true experimental science does not do this. A hypothesis is based on a likely but objective idea...creationists created a hypothesis based on scripture, and selected experimentation that would compliment that, and THEN, selected results that would "confirm" the scriptures. NO scientist would consider this a good way to utilize scientific method. Funny thing about your argument, is that there are scientists who have tested and found wanting creationism. They did exactly what your first question asked, and concluded that evolution was better. Or looked at the experimentation and evidence produced by creationists themselves and found the flaws, and concluded, CORRECTLY, that evolution was a more logical-based-on-evidence-from-true-scientific-method theory. You mistakenly think that science simply dismisses rubbish. No, they look, consider, THEN dismiss because it is exactly that: Rubbish.

Quoting GotSomeKids:

Well, from a scientific stand point, aren't you suppose to test all theories, observe all options, address all issues?  Well, creationism is one of them.  I don't say hide it from your kids, tell them about it too.  Tell them about evolution too and let them decide.   I think him telling parents not to tell kids about creationsim (if I'm reading it correctly) is just as bad as creationist not telling their kids about evolution.

The sad things is, we are all telling our kids they don't have the ability to make those determinations themselves.  I've told my kids both options and they have a lot of questions.  I tell them I don't have all the answers and they have to decide what they want to do with the information.  It will certainly be interesting to see what they do when they get older.

[AdrianneHill]

Well I've asked a couple of times what kind of axioms they used. And I've asked why evolution should be asked to explain things like logic or the introduction of sci fi in the human imagination. As soon as someone finds a soul bone or small piece cartilage consisting of the human sense of decency, we can start looking to see when humanity as it is came about, until then it is beyond the realm of what it can answer.

[cammibear]

Who is implying that scientists shouldn't study Things that are observable? I'm certainly not.

I think you hit on what I'm trying to say. It's not impossible to include Biblical thought into all the sciences. Not when a biblical worldview is how you interpret everything you see or think. But the same applies to someone who has a secular or atheistic worldview. Your not going to come to the conclusion that there is a God. You are going to keep changing your argument as new evidence is discovered to fit with your worldview. But you are also going to have to borrow from a theistic worldview if you are going to say that there are laws of logic and that we can "know" anything, because that does not logically fit into an evolutionist worldview. So it doesn't need to explain it, but it does need to pull from another worldview to use it.

I do agree that people are mixed up on empirical evidence and historical science. Bill Nye's comments clearly show this and is what prompted a reply from AIG.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

How can it be wrong to decide that the only things that can be studied are things that other scientists can see and test for themselves? It would be impossible to try to include biblical thought with all of the sciences just as it would be ridiculous to study mountain ranges starting with the idea that these things were made by giants wrestling around even though all of the evidence points in another direction but that is what has been believed by your people for generations.



And why does evolution need to explain the emergence of logic or reason? Just as it does NOT state that all life started from a random clump of amino acids somehow granted life by a lightning strike or whatever, evolution shouldn't be pushed to explain what is beyond its purview? Things like dignity, logic, reason, and other things that cant be measured would be very hard to detect in skeletons or Dna. Scientists take the easier way and don't try to quantify these things and stick to the testable. If you can figure out a way to include the "rational thought of a creator" as a quantifiable variable, I'm sure more scientists will include it in their formula in the future.



Abiogenesis is the theory that all life arose from nonliving organic matter in the primordial soup. The theory that everything came from a singularity and is now still part of that ever increasing explosion from fourteen billion years ago is the Big Bang theory which also has nothing to do with evolution. I just needed to put that because people seem to be mad about evolution but their arguments are really with other scientific theories that have been mistakenly attributed to evolution.

Quoting cammibear:

Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you, if you have already placed conditions on what that evidence can and cannot be, or where that evidence can or cannot take you.





You are exactly correct though. This is exactly how evolutionists do science. They interpret all data through their presuppositions, including the presumption that there is no God, and including the presumption that they can come to a logical conclusion apart from God, even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumption

Not exactly.

Science makes the assumption that we do not NEED to assume the supernatural, in order to explain the things we can observe.   Or, to put it another way, it limits itself to finding the sorts of explanations that it can back up with objective evidence (which rules out the supernatural).  In this respect, evolution is just like all the rest of science.

[romalove]

 

Quoting cammibear:

Who is implying that scientists shouldn't study Things that are observable? I'm certainly not.

I think you hit on what I'm trying to say. It's not impossible to include Biblical thought into all the sciences. Not when a biblical worldview is how you interpret everything you see or think. But the same applies to someone who has a secular or atheistic worldview. Your not going to come to the conclusion that there is a God. You are going to keep changing your argument as new evidence is discovered to fit with your worldview. But you are also going to have to borrow from a theistic worldview if you are going to say that there are laws of logic and that we can "know" anything, because that does not logically fit into an evolutionist worldview. So it doesn't need to explain it, but it does need to pull from another worldview to use it.

I do agree that people are mixed up on empirical evidence and historical science. Bill Nye's comments clearly show this and is what prompted a reply from AIG.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

How can it be wrong to decide that the only things that can be studied are things that other scientists can see and test for themselves? It would be impossible to try to include biblical thought with all of the sciences just as it would be ridiculous to study mountain ranges starting with the idea that these things were made by giants wrestling around even though all of the evidence points in another direction but that is what has been believed by your people for generations.



And why does evolution need to explain the emergence of logic or reason? Just as it does NOT state that all life started from a random clump of amino acids somehow granted life by a lightning strike or whatever, evolution shouldn't be pushed to explain what is beyond its purview? Things like dignity, logic, reason, and other things that cant be measured would be very hard to detect in skeletons or Dna. Scientists take the easier way and don't try to quantify these things and stick to the testable. If you can figure out a way to include the "rational thought of a creator" as a quantifiable variable, I'm sure more scientists will include it in their formula in the future.



Abiogenesis is the theory that all life arose from nonliving organic matter in the primordial soup. The theory that everything came from a singularity and is now still part of that ever increasing explosion from fourteen billion years ago is the Big Bang theory which also has nothing to do with evolution. I just needed to put that because people seem to be mad about evolution but their arguments are really with other scientific theories that have been mistakenly attributed to evolution.

Quoting cammibear:

Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you, if you have already placed conditions on what that evidence can and cannot be, or where that evidence can or cannot take you.





You are exactly correct though. This is exactly how evolutionists do science. They interpret all data through their presuppositions, including the presumption that there is no God, and including the presumption that they can come to a logical conclusion apart from God, even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumption

Not exactly.

Science makes the assumption that we do not NEED to assume the supernatural, in order to explain the things we can observe.   Or, to put it another way, it limits itself to finding the sorts of explanations that it can back up with objective evidence (which rules out the supernatural).  In this respect, evolution is just like all the rest of science.

 How and why would a scientist include a "biblical worldview" in doing research and interpreting data? 

 

[cammibear]

I can see the debate over whether day was literal or if it meant a long period of time.

But there is a huge difference in saying all life evolved from a primordial soup, and God created. I guess I'm not clear what you believe, and how you tie evolution to Genesis 1, if you believe the Word is infallible.

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Sorry not trying to come off defensive, I am just not clear on what you specifically oppose regarding evolution and what makes it incomparable with your beliefs.

Quoting cammibear:

Again, I'm not sure why you seem to be on the defense. I'm not asking you to agree. I thought, since you are a bible believing Christian, it would be an interesting discussion. I never claimed to have all the answers. I think macroevolution contradicts "god created".

Quoting 12hellokitty:

I can agree that scripture is the infallible knowledge of God, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the way creationist interpret scripture, unless they can show where in the bible they have been given authority to interpret scripture.

Quoting cammibear:

Based on man's fallible logic. Scripture is the infallible knowledge of God. Gee...which to trust? ;)









We have a friend who is a molecular biologist. For years was an evolutionist, but is now a Creationist because of the evidence.

Quoting stringtheory:

The problem with this stance, is that science tests likely theories that are based on logic, not scripture. Creationism is a "science" that came into play with a subjective hypothesis; true experimental science does not do this. A hypothesis is based on a likely but objective idea...creationists created a hypothesis based on scripture, and selected experimentation that would compliment that, and THEN, selected results that would "confirm" the scriptures. NO scientist would consider this a good way to utilize scientific method. Funny thing about your argument, is that there are scientists who have tested and found wanting creationism. They did exactly what your first question asked, and concluded that evolution was better. Or looked at the experimentation and evidence produced by creationists themselves and found the flaws, and concluded, CORRECTLY, that evolution was a more logical-based-on-evidence-from-true-scientific-method theory. You mistakenly think that science simply dismisses rubbish. No, they look, consider, THEN dismiss because it is exactly that: Rubbish.

Quoting GotSomeKids:

Well, from a scientific stand point, aren't you suppose to test all theories, observe all options, address all issues?  Well, creationism is one of them.  I don't say hide it from your kids, tell them about it too.  Tell them about evolution too and let them decide.   I think him telling parents not to tell kids about creationsim (if I'm reading it correctly) is just as bad as creationist not telling their kids about evolution.

The sad things is, we are all telling our kids they don't have the ability to make those determinations themselves.  I've told my kids both options and they have a lot of questions.  I tell them I don't have all the answers and they have to decide what they want to do with the information.  It will certainly be interesting to see what they do when they get older.

[cammibear]

They don't. I don't expect them to. That's my point though. All data is interpreted through your presuppositions or your worldview, whatever that might be. It's how we can look at the same evidence and come to entirely different conclusions about that evidence.

Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting cammibear:

Who is implying that scientists shouldn't study Things that are observable? I'm certainly not.

I think you hit on what I'm trying to say. It's not impossible to include Biblical thought into all the sciences. Not when a biblical worldview is how you interpret everything you see or think. But the same applies to someone who has a secular or atheistic worldview. Your not going to come to the conclusion that there is a God. You are going to keep changing your argument as new evidence is discovered to fit with your worldview. But you are also going to have to borrow from a theistic worldview if you are going to say that there are laws of logic and that we can "know" anything, because that does not logically fit into an evolutionist worldview. So it doesn't need to explain it, but it does need to pull from another worldview to use it.

I do agree that people are mixed up on empirical evidence and historical science. Bill Nye's comments clearly show this and is what prompted a reply from AIG.

Quoting AdrianneHill:

How can it be wrong to decide that the only things that can be studied are things that other scientists can see and test for themselves? It would be impossible to try to include biblical thought with all of the sciences just as it would be ridiculous to study mountain ranges starting with the idea that these things were made by giants wrestling around even though all of the evidence points in another direction but that is what has been believed by your people for generations.



And why does evolution need to explain the emergence of logic or reason? Just as it does NOT state that all life started from a random clump of amino acids somehow granted life by a lightning strike or whatever, evolution shouldn't be pushed to explain what is beyond its purview? Things like dignity, logic, reason, and other things that cant be measured would be very hard to detect in skeletons or Dna. Scientists take the easier way and don't try to quantify these things and stick to the testable. If you can figure out a way to include the "rational thought of a creator" as a quantifiable variable, I'm sure more scientists will include it in their formula in the future.



Abiogenesis is the theory that all life arose from nonliving organic matter in the primordial soup. The theory that everything came from a singularity and is now still part of that ever increasing explosion from fourteen billion years ago is the Big Bang theory which also has nothing to do with evolution. I just needed to put that because people seem to be mad about evolution but their arguments are really with other scientific theories that have been mistakenly attributed to evolution.

Quoting cammibear:

Okay, but you cannot say you follow the evidence wherever it takes you, if you have already placed conditions on what that evidence can and cannot be, or where that evidence can or cannot take you.





You are exactly correct though. This is exactly how evolutionists do science. They interpret all data through their presuppositions, including the presumption that there is no God, and including the presumption that they can come to a logical conclusion apart from God, even though evolution cannot explain where logic, reason, or knowledge comes from.

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

Evolution flows from the assumption that all things happened without a God Creator. It begins with that blind faith assumption

Not exactly.

Science makes the assumption that we do not NEED to assume the supernatural, in order to explain the things we can observe.   Or, to put it another way, it limits itself to finding the sorts of explanations that it can back up with objective evidence (which rules out the supernatural).  In this respect, evolution is just like all the rest of science.

 How and why would a scientist include a "biblical worldview" in doing research and interpreting data?