In this Corner – A Conservative Amateur

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Trump

The presidential campaign in 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is between a professional liberal and an amateur conservative. The ability of conservatives to win elections has been undermined for decades as moderates, libertarians, and tea party activists have undermined the foundation of conservative political philosophy in the Republican Party. The ability of the Republican Party to regain a leadership position in our country depends more on reconstructing its base than it does on who gets elected.

The purpose of a political party is not to get people elected. Surely, this is one aspect of a party’s responsibilities. The main purpose of a political party is to govern!

Government means more than holding public office. It means holding a common perspective that gives guidance and focus to the rule of law for everyone who holds public office. We are seeing this in the example of liberal judges unified in making public bathrooms a gender neutral zone for mentally ill people who cannot determine their own gender even after they see their privates in the privacy of the privy. We are seeing in the modern court system a unified perspective of the rule of law that accepts a valueless foundation for governance. The unity of the Democrat Party to present a unified thesis for governance is their key to victory. The disunity of the Republican Party to represent a values based foundation for government is the key to our defeat. This has to change.

Governing means following the rule of law. Without the rule of law, we have a tyranny of the will of man. Many would argue that without a moral foundation to the law, there is only left the will of man and thus the tyranny we are seeing the courts today. The Republican Party used to be a party of law and order. Conservatism is based upon the foundation of the rule of law and the moral values that underpin the law. Today, we are facing a party of disunity where the social moral issues of our day are set aside for the baseless pursuit of economic advantage and electoral opportunism.

The moderates of the Republican Party come in two varieties, those who are absent without leave on the social moral issues and those who do not support moral values as the foundation of good government. Whether absentee or actively opposed to moral values, moderates are actively hostile to conservatives who voice their support for the rule of law and the foundation of morality that underpins the law. Moderates are a key to failure as they provide disunity to a solid conservative foundation of the Party and the values we can offer the general public in the pursuit of good governance. As they say, let’s include more people who disagree with the rest of us so we can win elections (go figure?!).

Libertarians have never had a home of their own where they can compete against the major political parties and achieve continued, sustained success. So, to promote their philosophy of governance, they join and use the Republican Party like parasites use a host to suck out the life blood. Ronald Reagan was a prolife, Christian, social, moral, fiscal, defense conservative, and a libertarian. We have not seen the likes of him in decades. However, modern libertarians are absent without leave on the conservative values that represent the social issues as they are actively liberal on the social issues. We cannot confuse the libertarian values of a previous generation to the modern generation of libertarians.

Libertarians, as social liberals/fiscal conservatives, represent an opposition to traditional conservative perspectives. The beginning of conservative thought, said Russell Kirk, is a belief in a transcendent order or body of natural law. Instead of following conservative thinking, modern libertarians want an end to the law that prosecutes elective abortions, sodomy (pro-homosexual), and recreational drug use (legalized marijuana) as criminal. These libertarians, who make their home in the GOP, are pseudo-anarchists and represent the worst of what is in the Republican Party philosophically. It is this philosophy of lawlessness that has led the party to continued dissolution and disunity.

The Tea Party has promoted itself as a movement with conservative values but lacks the core values of a true conservative movement. They were absent without leave on the social moral issues just like many moderates and libertarians in the Republican Party. Their advocacy was fully fiscal and represented nothing of the social moral values of traditional conservatives.

This year, we are seeing a complete devolution of the Republican Party. Donald Trump, who paraded himself on Fox News Channel for years with endless commentary, considered a run for the Presidency that did not include the traditional values conservatives expect. Going beyond the devolution of conservatism that the moderates, libertarians, and Tea Party hopefuls led the Republican Party through, Trump and many like him represent an ignorance of what conservative values are really all about. Trump is effectively an amateur conservative looking for a philosophical foundation. Not having one of his own that has gone through the rigor of challenge and debate, Trump recruits others who try and get past his bravado to show him the true conservative way. Sadly, it may be too little too late for him.

However, it is not too little too late for the Republican Party or our country. The House and Senate represent a strong conservative base for governance in the Congress. Having a Republican in the White House will add value to a conservative Congress to turn our nation towards moral relevance and take us back from the fiscal cliff. Although an amateur, Trump will follow the advice of many who are professional conservatives, practiced in competing with professional liberals who do not follow traditional values.

In the end, the Republican Party needs to look past this and other elections and begin rebuilding their base to stand firm on the values that made the Party great. The GOP can endure one or several candidates who do not represent the best we have to offer the general public on Election Day but they cannot succeed as a Party until they unify under one conservative banner. That is their right in a free association of likeminded people. It’s time they begin including more people who agree with them than disagree with them.

Review of Bill Nye’s Book, Undeniable (Part 5 of 5)

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

ham nye 5

Introduction

Bill Nye, an evolutionist, and Ken Ham, a creationist, had a debate in February 2014 in which they discussed the topic of whether or not Creationism could stand in the modern context of science. Nye has taken the liberty to write a book, Undeniable (2014), in which he attempts to present a concise view of evolution. Nye presents his thesis of evolution with philosophical zeal but as I read his book I was struck with the fact that he never offered solid empirical evidence of evolution’s reality. Future debates should discuss the question of whether or not Evolution can stand in the context of modern (empirical) science. This review of Bill Nye’s book explores just that question.

Conclusions

Nye outlined the arguments of what would make him a believer in Creationism.

  1. Inversions. Where are the species swimming up through the geological record?
  2. Radio carbon dating, etc. He sees this as flawless.
  3. Species variation since the flood. How is that possible?
  4. Deep time. What about all the evidence?

Let’s review some answers to his concerns one at a time.

  • Relative Dating

First, the fossil record is continually being updated with new discoveries. Bill Nye has acknowledged this in his book. As a continually updated record, more discoveries of fossils are showing the fossil record to be a single event and represent the unity of mankind.

Extensive research has been done into the fossil record to show that the relative dating methods used to identify each layer of rock do not show a continuum of time but one geological event. Various species have been identified as anchor species to date particular layers within the fossil record. As more discoveries are found, these anchor species are being found in multiple layers that they were not considered to belong to. As such, the fossil record is showing a history of a single event, which creationists consider to be the result of Noah’s Flood.

Further, the evolution of mankind can no longer be supported by the fossil evidence as the time for each genera of man is overlapping. Hence, the unity of mankind is becoming more apparent as new discoveries of the fossil record emerge.

And the standard column of stratigraphy is no longer the established rule for the layers of the fossil record. The overwhelming majority of sites across the globe show many geological inversions that do not support the interpretation of the fossil record that evolutionists rely upon. Many things are swimming up and down the fossil record.

    • Absolute Dating

Second, absolute dating methods rely upon assumptions that cannot be tested or proved. If the assumptions hold then the conclusions hold too. If not, then the conclusions are false. So trying to use empirical dating methods requires a set of assumptions that cannot be empirically validated.

    • Genetic Dating

Bill Nye assumes that the living organisms that populate the earth all came from Noah’s Ark. There are many species of birds, bugs, and fish that could have survived the Flood that were not aboard the Ark. For those who were aboard the Ark, genetic variation and adaptation would provide a means of delivering species all over the globe.

Nye contends that bacteria in ancient fossil mats provide an origin for all life on the planet. However, specialists in the field challenge the idea of microbes-to-man evolution showing that it would take a 1,000 times longer (4e12 vs 3.5e9) for species to evolve than Nye thinks. The trouble with using genetic dating to refute the variation of species from the Ark is that it is better suited to refute microbes-to-man evolution.

    • Philosophical Dating

The concept of deep time is one born of ancient philosophy and myth. ‘From a deep chaotic past matter was in a state of chaos that later received form to become minerals, vegetables, and animals.’ This ancient idea of metaphysics led to the modern idea of classification systems and later to evolution. As a philosophical view of science it makes sense that Nye would resort to it.

The problem with the fossil record, however, is that there is no empirical time stamp to show what time the layer of rock was deposited or what time the fossilized organism was deposited. The Inductive method of philosophical science borrows the idea of floral and faunal succession to make a philosophical time stamp to the layers of rock and species of life fossilized therein.

  • Summary

So to sum it up:

  1. Inversions have been identified in the fossil record
    1. Indicating one single flood event
    2. Indicating the unity of ancient mankind
  2. Assumptions in dating methods cannot be tested empirically
  3. Genetics provides a more reasonable explanation
    1. Of life diversifying after the flood
    2. Than of life evolving from ancient bacteria
  4. Deep time is a philosophy
    1. It is born of ancient mythical ideas
    2. It cannot be validated empirically

I am convinced that even after the evidence is presented, Bill Nye will continue to be convinced that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. This is the undeniable fact of his book, Undeniable. Nye has long been admired for his work in television where he claimed to be the ‘science guy’ teaching children basic principles of empirical science. However, he has removed himself from the world of empiricism and delved into the realm of science philosophy with his book on evolution.

Empirical science takes a step further than philosophical science where a speculative thesis is first falsified and then tested. The scientific tests of a thesis produce empirical data that yield empirical mathematics. And it is from the math that the engineer (an applied scientist by definition) develops technology. Nevers does Nye present any data or math from experiment to validate his thesis of evolution. Nor does he present any technology that is based upon evolution to support his views. It is clear that evolution cannot stand in a modern context of science. And far from being the ‘science guy,’ Bill Nye has become the ‘philosopher guy.’

Author Bios

  • Bill Nye

Bill Nye is a graduate of Cornell University with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. While at Cornell, he attended an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan. Nye later worked with Boeing in Seattle, Washington where he produced training films that he starred in. Bill Nye has enjoyed his lengthy career as a science educator working in many television comedy roles and even Dancing with the Stars. His experience with ‘edutainment’ includes his role as the ‘science guy’ in his popular TV series.

Nye has recently become the Executive Director of The Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to exploring planets in our solar system. Nye is also involved in the popular science of Global Warming and has his own Climate Lab at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Nye is also involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a secular humanist organization attempting to expose scientific errors. Nye’s recent book, Undeniable, has drawn praise from people whose skepticism runs against the ideas of Creation Science. Nye continues to appear on TV and write on subjects of interest.

  • James Carlson

James Carlson is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin with a BS in Aerospace Engineering. He was a student of Hans Mark, former Deputy Director of NASA (mentor of Sagan), who recommended Carlson for an internship with NASA Ames. Carlson is currently a test engineer with the White Sands Missile Range and tests military hardware. He uses the test process to capture data, reduce data, and present data in reports.

Prior to earning his bachelor’s degree in engineering, Carlson was a History major with a minor in Religious Studies. The history of ideas is his passion. He has studied the evolutionist creationist debate for more than 30 years and his writing background includes research into the long history of ideas that led to evolution. His 1,000 page manuscript, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos, presents the extant record of history to prove that evolution is an idea born of ancient myth. Carlson’s subsequent work, The Alchemy of Evolution, proves that evolution is an idea born of medieval European alchemy.

Alchemy of EvolutionPurchase this book online.

 

Review of Bill Nye’s Book, Undeniable (Part 4 of 5)

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

ham nye 4

Introduction

Bill Nye, an evolutionist, and Ken Ham, a creationist, had a debate in February 2014 in which they discussed the topic of whether or not Creationism could stand in the modern context of science. Nye has taken the liberty to write a book, Undeniable (2014), in which he attempts to present a concise view of evolution. Nye presents his thesis of evolution with philosophical zeal but as I read his book I was struck with the fact that he never offered solid empirical evidence of evolution’s reality. Future debates should discuss the question of whether or not Evolution can stand in the context of modern (empirical) science. This review of Bill Nye’s book explores just that question.

History of Evolution

Bill Nye is a great teacher of ideas, even false ones. He got his name, the ‘science guy’ by teaching young people about science on TV. However, he is missing many points of history as he tries to teach us about the evolution of evolution itself.

  • Evolution is Alchemy

We can go back into history as far as ancient myth or ancient philosophy born of ancient myth to find the historic roots of evolution. But let’s fast forward to the ideas of science linked with medieval alchemy in 16th and 17th century Europe. History records that 17th century Alchemy led to 18th century Transformationism, which led to 19th century Evolution. Not only was Lamarck an 18th century French Transformationist, Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin’s grandfather) was 18th century English Transformationist. Evolution in the 19th century came from the old metaphysical ideas of alchemy.

The argument of 17th century alchemy would go like this, ‘the same material substance found in the species of lead is also in the species of gold, just in different forms. But through the process of the transformation of species, lead can become gold.’ Fast forward to the 19th century the argument would go like this, ‘the same material substance (protoplasm, protein, albumin, etc.) that is in the species of an amoeba is in the species of a man, just in different forms in the amoeba and man. But through the process of the transformation of species, an amoeba can become man.’ These are the exact same arguments of metaphysics. Modern evolutionary theory is nothing more than 19th century biological alchemy.

Nye went on to praise Lamarck’s Complexifying Force (Le pouvoir de la vie). Rejecting the chemistry of Lavoisier (father of modern chemistry), Lamarck believed in the basic elements of alchemy in the 18th century. His view of biology was also influenced by alchemy as he believed living organisms spontaneously generated (an alchemical idea) from simple forms and developed into more complex forms up a ladder of progress by the action of a complexifying force on matter. Nye’s stands firmly on this foundation of alchemy – a foundation that will crumble.

  • Evolution is Religion

Nye missed the historical fact that Darwin’s only degree earned in college was in Theology; he was a failed med. student beforehand. Darwin was an avid reader of William Paley’s Natural Theology and even lived in his dormitory while in school. Darwin also read the Bridgewater Treatises and became intimately familiar with the ideas of natural theology from them. Darwin was eager to become a member of the English Clergy who traditionally studied natural science in support of natural theology as a part of their work (Joseph Priestly, etc.).

Darwin’s natural theology was natural selection; he rejected the divine selection idea. Darwin also rejected the idea of a spiritual agent acting in nature to make changes in species and embraced a view of materialism that he grew up with in the Unitarian religion. Modern evolutionary theory still carries the theology of Darwin’s materialism as a central thesis of evolution.

In fact, Creationism and Evolution are both the grandchildren of 19th century natural theology. We are distant cousins born of the same family tree and as members of the same family, we argue over natural theology using the philosophical tool of Induction. Induction was used in the 19th century to support arguments of natural theology and it is still being used today by both sides. Sadly, as Induction cannot refute an errant thesis, these debates will never end. Only empirical science can refute an errant thesis.

Politics of Evolution

  • Man Directed Evolution

Nye is not careful in telling us how to live our lives. From preventing the onslaught of future asteroids, to taking care of our crops, and promoting genetic stem cell research, Bill Nye is busy helping us along the evolutionary time scale. Yet while Nye is busy helping us, he neglects the dangers in promoting man directed evolution.

We witnessed the horrors of eugenics during the Nazi holocaust that killed 11 million people. Margaret Sanger, an American eugenics advocate helped found Planned Parenthood that has killed another 55 babies in an American holocaust. Eugenics is a product of man directed evolution that has killed literally millions of people as a result.

Racism is at the root of evolution as Darwin’s title proves: On the Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Nye attempts an argument around this but continues to embrace the idea of monkeys-to-man evolution that is inherently racist. Man directed evolution will always have the stain of racism.

These are but two examples of the horrors of man directed evolution that are based upon history. Man direct evolution cannot produce beneficial progress for mankind. However, Nye feels compelled to try and he is ready to produce results.

    • Global vs Polar Warming (Chapter 14)

Nye is convinced he’s in the catbird seat, able to save our planet from global warming – my hero! However, the idea of global warming is not based upon empirical science as much as science speculation. Following the data one may derive a different viewpoint.

Empirical data from NASA data graphs reveal that the warming trend on our planet is centered on the poles, especially the North Pole. This is why polar bears are floating on ice cubes. Further empirical data (from northern Alaska and Oklahoma) reveals that nature-made CO2 levels are rising without any contribution from man-made CO2. [NASA Data Graphs: <http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004200/a004252/2014_update_robinson_composite.mp4>, <https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4252#>; CO2 Data <http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/>]

For those acquainted with science, we are supposed to follow the data not speculation. Real science follows the data to make conclusions. Instead of global warming caused by man-made CO2 production it appears we are experiencing polar warming caused by nature-made CO2; at least that’s how I read the data.

The earth has experience magnetic pole reversals, mini-ice ages, etc. throughout its history. However, Bill Nye is not content to allow nature its role without his intervention. The real problem isn’t that the temperature is rising. The problem is that the hunger for power is rising. Man directed evolution puts men like Bill Nye into the seat of power over mankind making him god.

    • Arrest the Creationists

Bill Nye has clearly said that the children of pastors need to be rescued (Chapter 2) from their parents and indoctrinated with evolutionary thinking. While he is content to indoctrinate other children in public schools with his view of evolution, he is not in favor of a parent’s right to choose the best education for their own children. As creationism has been kicked out of public schools, evolution should also be removed. Instead of teaching the philosophy, theology, and metaphysics of evolution we should be teaching biology, chemistry, and physics of empirical science. Let’s put science back into science curriculum.

Nye even thinks there needs to be a religious test for voters that would exclude creationists from voting (Chapter 2). The idea of voting rights is lost in his world of man directed evolution. This is a throwback to the day of the Nazi’s who put Jews in ghettos. Putting creationists into political ghettos is extreme and dangerous. Nye is fast becoming a fascist.

Nye criticizes religious people in general who do not understand science but continue to use it (Chapter 31). He thinks a little knowledge in the hands of the wrong people is a dangerous thing. Pro-lifers use the science of embryology to advocate a religious viewpoint that he disagrees with. However, as evolutionists support abortion they suggest the fetus is not yet a baby (based on Recapitulation). This idea has led to the mass slaughter of millions of innocent babies and the rape of as many women at the hands of an abortionist. Indeed, Nye’s lack of understanding is terribly dangerous.

Nye is so convinced that his religious beliefs are right, he thinks he has a right to put people in jail who disagree with him (chapter 31). This is a throwback to the days when Nazi science imprisoned people for having different viewpoints on the science of the master race. If you equated Jews with Germans you were being unscientific and went to jail or concentration camps.

Nye expands his condemnation to include more than creationists; he condemns all Christians in general for disagreeing with his views. Nye wants to use the government to enforce his religious and political views of evolution upon all society in violation of the no establishment clause of the U.S. First Amendment. Nye is blind to the fact that evolution is not real science, the fact that evolution does not produce any new science, and the fact that evolution hinders real scientific discovery in medicine or in technology. Although he is sincere in his views, he is sincerely wrong. He and others like him should have nothing to do with real political power.

Although Bill Nye presents a mountain of information to support his thesis of evolution, his arguments are primarily philosophical. In the end, Nye fails to validate his thesis empirically. Far from being the ‘science guy,’ Bill Nye has now become the ‘philosopher guy.’

Author Bios

  • Bill Nye

Bill Nye is a graduate of Cornell University with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. While at Cornell, he attended an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan. Nye later worked with Boeing in Seattle, Washington where he produced training films that he starred in. Bill Nye has enjoyed his lengthy career as a science educator working in many television comedy roles and even Dancing with the Stars. His experience with ‘edutainment’ includes his role as the ‘science guy’ in his popular TV series.

Nye has recently become the Executive Director of The Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to exploring planets in our solar system. Nye is also involved in the popular science of Global Warming and has his own Climate Lab at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Nye is also involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a secular humanist organization attempting to expose scientific errors. Nye’s recent book, Undeniable, has drawn praise from people whose skepticism runs against the ideas of Creation Science. Nye continues to appear on TV and write on subjects of interest.

  • James Carlson

James Carlson is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin with a BS in Aerospace Engineering. He was a student of Hans Mark, former Deputy Director of NASA (mentor of Sagan), who recommended Carlson for an internship with NASA Ames. Carlson is currently a test engineer with the White Sands Missile Range and tests military hardware. He uses the test process to capture data, reduce data, and present data in reports.

Prior to earning his bachelor’s degree in engineering, Carlson was a History major with a minor in Religious Studies. The history of ideas is his passion. He has studied the evolutionist creationist debate for more than 30 years and his writing background includes research into the long history of ideas that led to evolution. His 1,000 page manuscript, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos, presents the extant record of history to prove that evolution is an idea born of ancient myth. Carlson’s subsequent work, The Alchemy of Evolution, proves that evolution is an idea born of medieval European alchemy.

Alchemy of EvolutionPurchase this book online.

Prayer for a Nation – George Washington

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Washington Praying

The famous image of George Washington praying at Valley Forge has long been established as fact, although some dismiss it. The first person witness of the event by Isaac Potts, a Quaker who was originally a Tory changed to become a Whig in support of the Revolution after witnessing the commanding general in prayer. This prayer by Washington was not just a matter of personal faith, it was a prayer on the behalf of a nation that was yet to be born.

The location of Valley Forge was 20 miles northwest of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was close to the city that was being occupied by the British but in a place that could prevent further raids into the Pennsylvania countryside. The valley itself was on the Valley Creek in Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania. The Potts family owned a forge in this area, hence the name Valley Forge.

Washington and his army moved into Valley Forge on 19 December 1777. They wintered through the next year and suffered many losses due to starvation, disease, and the bitter cold. It was in this setting that George Washington was witnessed praying on behalf of the nation.

Isaac Potts was in charge of the family grist mill in this same valley. One day while riding through the family property, a wooded area, he heard someone praying. He dismounted and walked to discover who this might be. And to his surprise he found the commanding general, George Washington praying. Mr. Potts relayed the story to the Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, an ordained Presbyterian minister, who recorded it in his diary.

“I knew personally the celebrated Quaker Potts who saw Gen’l Washington alone in the woods at prayer. I got it from himself, myself. Weems mentioned it in his history of Washington, but I got it from the man myself, as follows:

“I was riding with him (Mr. Potts) in Montgomery County, Penn’a near to the Valley Forge, where the army lay during the war of ye Revolution. Mr. Potts was a Senator in our State & a Whig. I told him I was agreeably surprised to find him a friend to his country as the Quakers were mostly Tories. He said, ‘It was so and I was a rank Tory once, for I never believed that America c’d proceed against Great Britain whose fleets and armies covered the land and ocean, but something very extraordinary converted me to the Good Faith!” “What was that,” I inquired? ‘Do you see that woods, & that plain. It was about a quarter of a mile off from the place we were riding, as it happened.’ ‘There,’ said he, ‘laid the army of Washington. It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods pointing to a close in view, I heard a plaintive sound as, of a man at prayer. I tied my horse to a sapling & went quietly into the woods & to my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis, & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world.

‘Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. I left him alone praying.

‘I went home & told my wife. I saw a sight and heard today what I never saw or heard before, and just related to her what I had seen & heard & observed. We never thought a man c’d be a soldier & a Christian, but if there is one in the world, it is Washington. She also was astonished. We thought it was the cause of God, & America could prevail.’ “He then to me put out his right hand & said ‘I turned right about and became a Whig.'”

The conversion of Mr. Potts political views was a result of his witness of General Washington’s prayer. Potts and his family were Quakers, opposed to war and violence. Yet Isaac Potts was swayed so much by this event that he believed it was time to support American Independence.

The prayer at Valley Forge was not just a symbol of a Christian General in prayer, it is the witness of the foundation of a nation that would be born with Independence. The United States of America was forged in prayer with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence. That Providence was not taken for granted; it was entreated in prayer on more than one occasion. (see further examples of Washington’s prayers at http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html#01). Washington’s prayer at Valley Forge is a testament to the Divine establishment of the American nation.

Review of Bill Nye’s Book, Undeniable (Part 3 of 5)

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

ham nye 3

Real Science vs False Science

Reading through Nye’s book I’ve discovered an apparent flaw to his thinking. He thinks evolution and genetics are one and the same thing whereas creationists see them as two separate things. Creationists accept species variation within its kind but not outside of its kind; species do not change to become a new kind of species. Nye and fellow evolutionists, in contrast, see species variations within and outside of their kind. This is the basic difference between creationist and evolutionist perspectives.

The truth is that the creationist perspective has been validated empirically and is called genetics; whereas the evolutionist perspective has never been validated empirically. Using only philosophical science to make his arguments, Nye relies upon false science and not real science.

  • Mosquito vs Mosquito (Chapter 18)

I recognize that Bill Nye has had a long and distinguished career. However, credentials do not add up to truth. Nor do baseless speculations amount to real empirical science. Through his discussion of the genetic changes he sees in a London mosquito, Nye uses terms like ‘intellectual analysis’, ‘imagine’, ‘infer’, ‘insights’, ‘just think’, ‘speculating’, ‘logical’, ‘assay’, and ‘guesswork involved.’ Mr. Nye is not thinking about his hero of science at this point. The thesis needs to be tested to render the principles of science or laws of nature (where’s the data?; where’s the math?; where’s the technology?; where’s the beef?).

Nye is fascinated with the tunnel mosquito that became isolated in London’s subways during WWII. He goes through a great deal of trouble to describe the changes that the culex pipen went through during the bombing raids of the Nazi’s during WWII. From isolation in these tunnels the culex pipen became the culex molestus, which he thinks is evolution but clearly it is nothing more than genetic adaptation.

Use the English we know and a ‘mosquito’ that ‘buzzes’ (culex pipen) later becomes a ‘mosquito’ that ‘bothers’ (culex molestus). Nye thinks this is an example of evolution. However, he misses the fact that a culex is a culex; a mosquito is still a mosquito. Again, this is only genetic mutation and adaptation. Get a clue! ‘Genetic divergence’ plus ‘time’ equals ‘adaptation’ but not evolution! Nye repeats this error throughout his book.

  • Micro- vs Macro- Evolution (Chapter 23)

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, biometricians studied the genetic mutations that could be observed in various species. They understood that the study of the macro- evolution of species could not be done in the laboratory or in one person’s life time given the prospect of deep time as a function of evolution. However, their hope was to connect the study of genetics, or micro- evolution, with the philosophy of macro- evolution.

Ernst Mayr was a leading evolutionist who understood this problem and criticized people for confusing genetics (micro- evolution) with evolution (macro- evolution). He even scolded Richard Dawkins for using the idea of ‘chance and genetics’ to explain macro- evolution. We can plainly see the work of ‘chance and genetics’ in genetics (micro- evolution) but it is not a mechanism for evolution (macro- evolution). Mayr said that Dawkins had no idea what he was talking about when he combined genetics with evolution – micro- with macro-. They are 2 different things.

This is the failure of all neo-Darwinians. There has never been any data showing the change of a species from one kind of a species to another kind of species. All changes are within one’s own kind. Chance works as a mathematical expression explaining the data surrounding genetics but when transposed to evolution that has no data for the transmutation of species, it is a fraudulent exercise of science. Chance and statistics are based upon data and without any data for macro- evolution, chance is simply wishful thinking.

The whole history of science shows that changes of species do not change the kind of species they are; the characteristics of a species change, beneficially or unbeneficially, within their own kind. After studying 50,000 generations of bacteria, bacteria reproduced more bacteria. After 100 years of studying the fruit fly, fruit flies still produced fruit flies. All changes in mosquitos still led to more mosquitos, moths are still moths, finches are finches, turtle – turtles, lizards – lizards, dogs are still just dogs, and cats are all cats. There is no empirical data yielding empirical laws of nature expressing anything like macro- evolution. The whole of science proves that micro- evolution, better called genetics, is the real science whereas macro- evolution is false science.

  • Hopeful Theories

The idea of evolution being based upon established scientific principles is laughable. The most fundamental principle in science is the second law of thermodynamics. This principle proves that in any given system, energy runs down while functional complexity and information is reduced in that system.

    • Negentropy (Chapter 3)

The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law of science that was later codified by Ludwig Boltzmann into a theory. His theory postulated many micro states of a closed system, close to equilibrium, in which entropy was increasing. Negentropy, or negative entropy, is a theoretical attempt at refuting the theory of Boltzmann by arguing for conditions far from equilibrium and in an open system.

Many people (Prigogine, etc.) challenged the theory of Boltzmann, they have never proved their theories empirically. There are lab experiments and mathematics that support the idea of negentropy but this has never been witnessed in nature as a natural phenomenon. As such, this is not a presentation of empirical science but of theoretical science.

If one were to redraw the control volume of a system around the entire open system one could show that entropy is increasing within this entire system. Conversely, one could argue that out of n micro states there are n-1 closed states and possibly 1 open state. Out of this one could argue that the 1 possible open state where entropy might be decreasing does not represent an overall decrease of entropy for the system as a whole. Negentropy is without empirical validation and has problems of its own. This is more philosophical science than empirical.

    • Self-Complexity (Chapter 17)

The idea of self-complexity is another tired idea that Nye uses to suggest how information can increase while a system is losing energy due to entropy. Nye even thinks that errors in DNA replication (a form of entropy in DNA) can provide for an increase in genetic information and functional complexity. But information theory proves that as entropy increases, information is lost. There cannot be any system of ‘self-complexity’ that functions within a system of increasing entropy. And we should note once again that in all systems (open and closed) entropy is increasing.

    • Modern Vitalism

Nye points to the modern synthesis of the early 20th century as a watershed of evolutionary thinking where genetics was further confused with evolution. It was at this time that the spiritual aspects of evolution (vitalism, entelechy, and teleology) began to be replaced with materialist views of evolution. Modern views of evolution that include self-complexity, self-organized criticality (SOC), autocatalysis, and hyper-cycles, are only repackaged versions of the vitalism of the past. Instead of spiritualist viewpoints, they have been replaced with new materialist viewpoints.

Far from providing a new framework for the empirical study of evolution, the modern synthesis worked to present evolution as a modern form of science. However, the work of science has never validated evolution empirically and the legacy of the modern synthesis is their ability to manipulate the curriculum in public schools. Teaching evolution in public systems of education requires that no challenges to their ideas be presented.

  • Real Science

At some point we have to ask, ‘what is the real science?’ We can look at the things Darwin got right and separate them from the things he got wrong. In so doing, we advance the cause of science for everyone. Darwin was correct in accepting the ideas of variety, population dynamics, biogeography, and natural selection. But he was incorrect in accepting the idea of the transformation of species. This is the basic flaw of Darwin, neo-Darwinians, and Nye alike.

Genetic adaptation is a law of nature. Adaptation is not the evolution of one species into a new ‘kind’ of species but a mutation of species that can change and adapt to various predator-prey systems, geographies, and climates. One can accept natural selection without accepting the transformation of species. This is a remarkable feature of God’s creation.

From this perspective of what real science is, I propose we advance the field of genetic research by taking Seawall Wright’s fitness landscape and start at the top and work our way down over time as species adapt with natural selection. We can also see that there should be a point in time in which the DNA of every species had its optimum organization in the distant past. Research into genetic optimization may open the door for new discoveries for the benefit of mankind.

Technology

Bill Nye has a bone to pick with creationists. He thinks that evolution is a basic principle of science and that denying it removes any advance in science, research, and technology. However, the contrary is true. Evolution denies basic principles of science and renders no technology for beneficial use.

  • Theistic Origin of Science

Mr. Nye thinks that modern science is hindered by people who believe in God as Creator. He sees creationists as objects of obstruction instead of construction. Yet he’s either ignorant of or avoiding the fact that hundreds of years of history show that theists led the movement to modern empirical science.

People such as Galileo (physics), Lavoisier (chemistry), and Pasteur (biology) have all had their hand in discovering the principles of science and believed in the Creator God. Faraday is a prime example that Nye should have recognized but here again, his bias is coming through.

  • Chemistry vs Alchemy

Back in the days of medieval European alchemy, Antoine Lavoisier conducted experiments in his lab on the red calyx of mercury. He concluded his experiments leading to a refutation of the alchemical principle called ‘phlogiston and calyxes’ and led the scientific community to accept a new principle of science called the ‘law of conservation of matter.’ For his work, Lavoisier is considered the Father of modern Chemistry and we have a myriad of technological developments that stem from this science.

During this time, Jean Baptist Lamarck was studying the changes in chemical and organic bodies and rejected the work of Lavoisier. Lamarck was an alchemist who believed that species could change given the proper conditions of their environment. Most famous of Lamarck’s ideas was that the neck of the giraffe stretched so it could reach the higher branches of leaves on a tree. Nye favor’s Lamarck and made use of Lamarck’s example by showing that humans and giraffes both have 7 vertebrae in our necks. Unfortunately, changes in the chemistry of one’s DNA do not make changes in one’s neck.

Nye is accepting a form of biological alchemy from someone who rejected the foundation of modern chemistry in favor of chemical alchemy. The ideas of chemical and biological alchemy are in contrast to the modern science of chemistry and genetics and lead to no discovery of science or application in technology.

    • Biogenesis vs Abiogenesis

Another discovery by experiment was made by Louis Pasteur who showed that the idea of biological alchemy, called spontaneous generation, did not occur in nature. However, the work of Pasteur was an obstacle to people in the 19th century that prevented them from believing that life could come from non-life. Pasteur’s experiments led to the principle of life coming only from life called Biogenesis. Biogenesis is considered the foundational principle of biological science. The technology of pasteurization is based upon his work.

However, evolutionists like Bill Nye show their continual reliance on the idea of spontaneous generation of life in some primordial sea. Instead of calling it spontaneous generation they call it Abiogenesis. This blatant denial of biology’s foundational law of nature is further compounded by calling evolution the foundational principle of biological science. Evolution is in denial of the basic principles of genetic change and the research of evolution has led to no discovery of any modern scientific principles or technology.

  • Where’s the Tech?

Is it asking too much of the ‘engineer guy,’ Bill Nye, to present the technology based upon evolution? Science is supposed to present the data and math born of experiment that renders the Laws of Nature or Principles of Science. Technology is designed and built by engineers who study these principles of science and the mathematics that comes from them. If one cannot present the data and the math associated with empirical tests, then perhaps one can present the technology instead.

If there was some technology that supposedly was based upon biological evolution, we could work backwards and ask what is the math that this technology is based upon that shows the work of evolution in nature? Then, we could take the math and explore the data upon which it was based in an experiment. And then we could see for ourselves that evolution is real science. But as there is no technology based upon evolution we have to conclude that the reason is because there is no real science behind evolution!

Although Bill Nye presents a mountain of information to support his thesis of evolution, his arguments are primarily philosophical. In the end, Nye fails to validate his thesis empirically. Far from being the ‘science guy,’ Bill Nye has now become the ‘philosopher guy.’

Author Bios

  • Bill Nye

Bill Nye is a graduate of Cornell University with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. While at Cornell, he attended an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan. Nye later worked with Boeing in Seattle, Washington where he produced training films that he starred in. Bill Nye has enjoyed his lengthy career as a science educator working in many television comedy roles and even Dancing with the Stars. His experience with ‘edutainment’ includes his role as the ‘science guy’ in his popular TV series.

Nye has recently become the Executive Director of The Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to exploring planets in our solar system. Nye is also involved in the popular science of Global Warming and has his own Climate Lab at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Nye is also involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a secular humanist organization attempting to expose scientific errors. Nye’s recent book, Undeniable, has drawn praise from people whose skepticism runs against the ideas of Creation Science. Nye continues to appear on TV and write on subjects of interest.

  • James Carlson

James Carlson is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin with a BS in Aerospace Engineering. He was a student of Hans Mark, former Deputy Director of NASA (mentor of Sagan), who recommended Carlson for an internship with NASA Ames. Carlson is currently a test engineer with the White Sands Missile Range and tests military hardware. He uses the test process to capture data, reduce data, and present data in reports.

Prior to earning his bachelor’s degree in engineering, Carlson was a History major with a minor in Religious Studies. The history of ideas is his passion. He has studied the evolutionist creationist debate for more than 30 years and his writing background includes research into the long history of ideas that led to evolution. His 1,000 page manuscript, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos, presents the extant record of history to prove that evolution is an idea born of ancient myth. Carlson’s subsequent work, The Alchemy of Evolution, proves that evolution is an idea born of medieval European alchemy.

Alchemy of EvolutionPurchase this book online.

Jesus’ Baptism with the Holy Spirit

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Jesus' Baptism

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, his mother, and grew up with his step father Joseph in the little town of Nazareth. He learned the trade of carpentry from his step father and was the eldest brother in a large family with many brothers and sisters. Not much is known about the events of his childhood, but it is clear that throughout his youth he listened to and followed the voice of his heavenly father.

Jesus was called at birth to save the sins of mankind. He was declared by prophets at his birth to be responsible for the rise and fall of many. He was declared by angels at his birth to be the glorious son of God who on earth would bring peace to mankind. The baby grew up to be a man and following the Will of His Father, he began his ministry with a simple act of obedience – baptism.

John the Baptist was the son of Zachariah and Elizabeth, and Mary was Elizabeth’s cousin . This made Jesus and John second cousins. They were born 6 months apart from one another and when Jesus was in the womb of Mary, John leaped in Elizabeth’s womb when the two women met. The link between Jesus and John was already established by the Holy Spirit. As John was preparing the way in the wilderness, he was used by God to open the door of ministry for Jesus.

Jesus began his ministry with his baptism with water. As John the Baptist performed the ritual ceremony, Jesus was raised from the water and received his second baptism with the Holy Spirit. This second baptism was provided by God. This baptism was given to Jesus to provide him with the power to serve in the ministry God had prepared for him.

A note about the text concerning Jesus’ baptism. We are often given the image of the Holy Spirit lowering himself onto Jesus’ shoulder in the form of a dove. I suggest that this is a misreading of the passages concerning Jesus’ baptism. God does not take on animal form, or the form of fire. The passages from the Bible tell us that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus ‘in bodily form’ ‘as if a dove.’ This can mean that the Holy Spirit of God descended on Jesus ‘in bodily form’ only ‘gently like a dove.’ God, the Holy Spirit, is a gentleman who will not force himself upon you. When you receive Him, He is a gentle person.

When Jesus had received his two baptisms, God spoke from Heaven saying, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” God, the Father of Jesus, gave Jesus His baptism with the Holy Spirit. We see the idea of the trinity here, noting that the three persons of the ‘Godhead’ are present in one time and space. The doctrine of the trinity is not a part of the Bible, but the fact of the trinity is (more later).

Jesus had received power from his Father God via the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. Jesus was just beginning his ministry with God. God provides for His ministry and service to His kingdom and requires we serve according to His Power and not our fleshly strength. We do not call ourselves into the ministry but when God calls, he provides. As the saying goes, ‘where God guides, He provides.”

The Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a prerequisite for service to God in His Kingdom. It is not a prerequisite for salvation from our sins. The ultimate ministry of Jesus was to rescue us from the slavery of our sins. This was how Jesus gave peace to all mankind by reconciling us with God for the forgiveness of sin on the Cross. We pray to receive this gift from God the Father of Jesus and then we become children of God by faith in Jesus. One day, we too may be called to serve God in the ministry and received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in order to serve God according to His Power and Will.

Please pray this prayer:

God of heaven, I believe in Jesus Christ who died on the Cross for me. I believe that he paid for the penalty of my sin, which I admit I have done. I ask for your forgiveness of my sin and thank you for your love. Please bring me closer to you so that I may know you. By your Holy Spirit, please make in me a clean heart, a renewed spirit, and a right mind that I may do those things that are pleasing to you. Thank you God, Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and now my Father in Heaven. Amen!

Review of Bill Nye’s Book, Undeniable (Part 2 of 5)

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

ham nye 2

Introduction

Bill Nye, an evolutionist, and Ken Ham, a creationist, had a debate in February 2014 in which they discussed the topic of whether or not Creationism could stand in the modern context of science. Nye has taken the liberty to write a book, Undeniable (2014), in which he attempts to present a concise view of evolution. Nye presents his thesis of evolution with philosophical zeal but as I read his book I was struck with the fact that he never offered solid empirical evidence of evolution’s reality. Future debates should discuss the question of whether or not Evolution can stand in the context of modern (empirical) science. This review of Bill Nye’s book explores just that question.

Philosophical Science – False Science

The Bible warns against following philosophical science calling it false science.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

[1 Timothy 6:20-21 (KVJ)]

The word ‘science’ used here in the Bible comes from the Greek word ‘gnosis,’ which means ‘knowledge.’ The Latin word for ‘knowledge’ is ‘scientia,’ which is the root for the English word ‘science.’ Gnosis in the Bible is not referring to modern empirical science but to the ancient variety of science we call philosophical science. The Bible is not contrary to the notion of knowledge or of empirical science that developed after Galileo in the 17th century.

Billl Nye, however, is a student of the philosophy of science called evolution. His entire book is dedicated to presenting the thesis of evolution in philosophical terms. He is convinced that we all have Big Brains that can be used to understand anything. However, this is the root of philosophy and not modern science. Nye even said,

“The astonishing thing about nature and the universe is that we can understand any of it.” [Chapter 22]

This, however, is absolutely not true. ‘Science’ means ‘knowledge’ but only God is all knowing (omniscient) whereas scientists and science is partly knowing. Science speaks loudly to the fact that we don’t know everything. But it also says, let’s investigate, test what we think we know, and find out what we don’t know. That way we’ll really know what is real and what is false knowledge.

  • Michael Faraday (Chapter 24)

Michael Faraday is one of Bill Nye’s scientific heroes. Here are a few quotes from Faraday concerning nature and science.

Nature is our kindest friend and best critic in experimental science if we only allow her intimations to fall unbiased on our minds. Nothing is so good as an experiment which, whilst it sets an error right, gives us (as a reward for our humility in being reproved) an absolute advancement in knowledge.

Without experiment I am nothing. But still try, for who knows what is possible? All our theories are fixed upon uncertain data, and all of them want alteration and support from facts. One thing, however, is fortunate, which is, that whatever our opinions, they do not alter nor derange the laws of nature.

ALL THIS IS A DREAM. Still examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these experiment is the best test of such consistency.

Faraday was a very religious person who believed in God the Creator, the same God who put laws into nature that scientists discover and call science. He was also keenly aware that the philosophy of man was never perfect in explaining these laws of nature and was not real science. One’s big brain is not big enough to explain the design of nature from mere thought, which is what Nye hopes to do. Experiment is required to prove, alter, or dismiss the philosophy of nature so we can have true knowledge (science) about nature.

If we follow Faraday instead of Darwin and Nye, we should test the thesis that was established by Darwin instead of continually rehearsing the thesis. The problem with biological evolution (Neo-Darwinism, etc.) is that it has never been validated empirically. And it makes sense that Faraday had joy in discovering the laws of nature that God put into His creation. Darwin on the other hand had doubts that led to his bouts of depression. Darwin is even quoted as saying:

… thinking of the many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often & often a cold shudder has run through me & I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy.

[Letter from Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell, 23 November 1859]

Faraday’s science was empirical and filled with joy. Darwin’s science was philosophical and filled with despair.

  • Induction – A Philosophical Tool of Science

Charles Darwin presented his thesis in 1859 using the philosophical tool of science called Induction. Induction was often used by natural theologians to support their arguments of theology. Darwin even quoted William Whewell, a natural theologian, in the opening of his book, Origins, as an example of the scientific method he would use in presenting his view on Origins. In other words, Darwin’s thesis in Origins was built upon a foundation of philosophical science, not empirical science.

Induction is a method of presenting various pieces of information (not the same as empirical data) into a mosaic that presents a picture of how nature may possibly work; this is one way in which a philosophical thesis is established. But after establishing a thesis, it has to be tested empirically. The problem with Induction as a tool of philosophical science is that it cannot refute an erroneous thesis; however, empirical science can refute an errant thesis of philosophical science.

The challenge presented by inductive reasoning is that if someone thinks they can present a better picture of reality based upon the available information, then go ahead and try. This is how the evolution vs creation debates began in the 19th century; and they continue to rage today (Ham v Nye 2014). One side can never fully refute the other as they compete with one another using inductive/philosophical science to back up their arguments. If one wants to win the debate, one must argue in the context of modern science and argue for empirical validation of theses or the lack thereof.

Induction and philosophy have been used repeated by evolutionists like Darwin and Nye but they have never presented an empirical validation of their thesis. As such, evolution is without empirical validation. Therefore, empirical science refutes evolution in the grand tradition of modern science explained by the great scientist Michael Faraday.

  • Philosophical Patterns in Classification Systems (Chapter 11)

Bill Nye claims we have a big brain, big enough to recognize patterns in nature. He claims that classification systems developed from this ability to recognize patterns but he does not know the full story behind taxonomy.

Before there was a classification system, Greek philosophers argued that all matter, organized and unorganized (living and mineral), were ordered into a hierarchy. This hierarchy presented the idea of a chain of being, a ladder of life, or a scale of nature. From these ideas came the idea of taxonomy and classification systems. The idea of lower forms taking on higher forms was developed by people like Plato and Aristotle. Instead of recognizing patterns in nature we need to recognize the pattern of philosophy behind the idea of taxonomy and classification systems.

  • Homology, Analogy, and Convergence (Chapter 11)

Nye continues to pursue the idea of patterns that led to a classification of species as he explores the ideas of homology, analogy, and convergence. He thinks that similarities between body parts (homology), body structures (analogy), and body function (convergence) provides evidence of evolution. However, as the philosophical tool of Induction can only be used to present a thesis (not prove it), an opposing thesis of Divine creation can also be presented on these same grounds (Induction vs Induction).

      • Flight

Nye appears to be misinformed about the principles of flight. Although he is a mechanical engineer who worked at Boeing, he does not present the basics of flight correctly. I am an aerospace engineer and I understand the basics of flight well enough. Nye assumes that all flight is derived by thrust where simply pushing air behind an aircraft, a bird, a bee is sufficient to provide lift. However, he misses the basic components of flight: 1) lift overcomes weight and 2) thrust overcomes drag. He has the thrust part down but that’s all.

Lift is the part of flight that Nye is missing. One scientific model of lift is based upon a principle called ‘simplified Bernoulli.’ This is an equation by Daniel Bernoulli who showed that if you take dynamic (parallel) pressure (Pd) and add it to static (perpendicular) pressure (Ps) you get a constant [Pd + Ps = C]. Increase the dynamic pressure and you reduce the static pressure; conversely, reduce the dynamic pressure and you increase the static pressure. Lift is based upon this simple concept of fluid dynamics. And as living species take advantage of this principle in various ways for flight, it presents a view of a creation designed by a Creator and not one of evolution.

        • Flight of a Bird

A wing on a bird has a half teardrop cross-sectional shape. When a bird is propelled (thrust) through the air by their wing tips (homologous to fingers on a hand), the air over the wing moves faster (dynamic pressure) than under the wing. So the static pressure is lower above the wing compared to below and lift occurs. Nye totally failed to present this piece of scientific information in his explanation of the supposed evolution of flight.

  • Flight of a Bumblebee

Similarly, a bumblebee flies by moving air with its wings (a totally different wing design) over the top of its body, which is in the form of a lifting body. As air moves over the top of the lifting body of a bumblebee the dynamic pressure above is more than below and again lift occurs. This convergence of lift between two different creatures with wings that are not analogous, using the principle of science outlined by Bernoulli, points to a Divine Creator who knows about the principles of flight and can use them in any configuration.

  • Flying Fish

Nye also believes that flying fish evolved to include flight with the wings they have. However, their wings (actually fins) do not provide for sustained flight but take advantage of a principle called ‘ground effect’ where the lift over drag ratio is better near the surface of the water for gliding. Also, the shape of the flying fish’s body is flattened on the bottom like a lifting body that causes lift when it moves through the air. The tail of the flying fish occasionally contacts the water and is used to add another jump to the fish’s flight. There is no direct analogy between the wings of the bird, the bee, or the flying fish but lift can be clearly explained by Bernoulli’s principles of fluid flow in each case.

  • Flying Bats

The study of aerodynamics has also shed light on shedding vortices, which Nye doesn’t present in his view of homology, analogy, and convergence. Vortex shedding doesn’t just occur at the tip of the wing but also at the root. This helps explain how some insects, bats, etc. who do not have a ‘proper wings’ or a ‘lifting body’ can fly.

There are many species that can fly and have similarities in their parts or structures of their bodies but there are differences as well in how flight is achieved. Homology and analogy do not provide a consistent view of flight’s so-called evolution. And as the method of aerodynamic lift is not always the same from one species to another, there is no convergence of flight for all flying species, which refutes the argument of convergent evolution.

  • Flights of Fancy

The lack of convergence between each method of flight does not point to the evolution of flight but to Nye’s imagination. Instead of pattern recognition, Nye falls victim to pattern borrowing using the ideas of classification systems that came from philosophical science. These same patterns of taxonomy and classification persist within the fossil record and evolutionary theory and are another example of philosophical science.

  • Fossil Record (Chapter 12)

The fossil record has long been a speculation of science. One interpretation of the fossil record borrows from the ideas of philosophy to present patterns in the context of classification systems. Another interpretation borrows the record presented in the Bible of Noah’s Flood. Both ideas have one pattern that is easily recognized and that is the use of the geological record to define the biological record of organic species fossilized within the geologic layers. The debate between evolutionists and creationists over the fossil record is another example of inductive thinking vs inductive thinking.

  • Induction vs Induction

Evolutionists and creationists use competing theories of geology to establish their complementary views of biology. Given the uniformitarian view of geology where the slow layering of the earth’s surface led to the slow evolution of species found within the earth and we have a complementary view of uniformitarian geology supporting an uniformitarian view of biology – evolution.

Taken from a creationist perspective, the geological record can be viewed from a perspective of catastrophes (catastrophism). With the sudden engulfing of the earth in a worldwide flood, came the layering of the various strata in the fossil record and the deposition of life forms within these layers. Here again, we have a complementary view of catastrophic geology supporting a catastrophic view of biology – creationism.

Induction vs Induction cannot solve this riddle of whether the fossil record is a record successive events or a record of just one event. We have to turn to empirical science to find a solution.

  • Absolute Dating Methods (Chapter 5)

Nye presents his view about millions and billions of years of earth geology/biology using absolute dating methods that he thinks provide an empirical foundation for his view of the fossil record. His presentation of dating methods presents nothing new, however; the debate of deep time has been going on for a long time.

Three basic questions shed light on this topic of dating methods [see CMI article in Creation: 14(2):43–47 March 1992 on this topic].

  1. Are the initial conditions known?
  2. Has the system remained closed? and
  3. Has the radioactive decay rate remained constant?

Nye naively assumes that the clock started after the molten rock solidified (1), he assumes the rock has not been subject to its environment (2), and he assumes that radioactive decay has been constant for billions of years (3). These assumptions cannot be tested or proven and therefore empirical science cannot establish a foundation for deep time in the fossil record.

  • Genetic Dating Methods 2 (Chapter 5)

Nye attempts to refute the Flood thesis by suggesting that there was not enough time for species who survived on Noah’s Ark to change genetically to produce the diversity of life we see today. However, Nye is more than willing to give enough time for evolution to occur from molecules-to-man.

Nye claims that mats of fossilized bacteria spontaneously generated 3.5 billion years ago and are the origin all the diversity of life we see on the earth today. Nye thinks there was enough time for simple cells to evolve into mankind but not enough time for species from the Ark to develop genetically diverse as we see them today. This again is an argument of Induction vs Induction.

Nye praises the work of geochemists as superior to geologists in helping establish this idea of molecules-to-man evolution. However, one such geochemist explained the problem of deep time in that it wasn’t possible for life to develop as fast as Nye thinks.

If Earth was the cradle for life, the time interval between its origin and the existence of the LCC [Last Common Community] appears incomprehensibly short. In view of the apparent complexity of the LCC, particularly in terms of biochemistry, it would be reasonable to allow perhaps 4 gigayears for its evolution from the primordial cell.

[Fenchel, T. and Finlay, B.J., Anaerobic environments; in: Ecology and Evolution in Anoxic Worlds. pp. 1–31. Ed. May R.M. and Harvey, P.H., Oxford University Pres, 1995; cited in Line, Ref; cited in CMI article, “Science, Creation and Evolutionism…,” by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, 8 February 2008, on this topic]

Nye’s estimate of time for evolution to occur is off by just a few orders of magnitude. Here again, there is no empirical foundation for the estimate that Nye uses for deep time and the fossil record.

  • Philosophical Dating Methods

The dating of layers in the geologic record is based upon philosophy and not empirical science. The theory of floral and faunal succession that came from the old ideas of classification philosophy are based upon the idea of a scale of nature. The dates of rock layers in the fossil record are supposedly based on the species that are found within them. Various anchor species date each layer of rock as they are defined by the scale of nature. Here we find a cyclical (sic) argument where the layers dated by certain organic species are then used to date other organic species in these same layers.

As a test engineer, I work with data routinely. We use timecode servers to put timestamps onto data we collect so we can render the data (raw data, metadata, calibrations) into proper engineering units for presentation and publication. As such, I recognize the need for an empirical time stamp in testing and science. Without an empirical timestamp there is no empirical data; just a bunch of disjointed information.

There is no empirical dating method associated with the fossil record and the supposed data found within the fossil record is not empirical data. Using a philosophical time stamp instead of an empirical one (witnessed by an individual in real time) then returns a philosophical set of information that is used in an argument of inductive reasoning.

Without empirical data we cannot use the fossil record in a modern context of empirical science. No data means no math and no math means no scientific principle established by empirical tests. The evolutionist at this point is left only with the parameter of time to explain the functions of evolution over time. However time is not a function. It is a parameter in an equation and the equation is missing. Again, no data, no math, no science.

Although Bill Nye presents a mountain of information to support his thesis of evolution, his arguments are primarily philosophical. In the end, Nye fails to validate his thesis empirically. Far from being the ‘science guy,’ Bill Nye has now become the ‘philosopher guy.’

Author Bios

  • Bill Nye

Bill Nye is a graduate of Cornell University with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. While at Cornell, he attended an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan. Nye later worked with Boeing in Seattle, Washington where he produced training films that he starred in. Bill Nye has enjoyed his lengthy career as a science educator working in many television comedy roles and even Dancing with the Stars. His experience with ‘edutainment’ includes his role as the ‘science guy’ in his popular TV series.

Nye has recently become the Executive Director of The Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to exploring planets in our solar system. Nye is also involved in the popular science of Global Warming and has his own Climate Lab at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Nye is also involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a secular humanist organization attempting to expose scientific errors. Nye’s recent book, Undeniable, has drawn praise from people whose skepticism runs against the ideas of Creation Science. Nye continues to appear on TV and write on subjects of interest.

  • James Carlson

James Carlson is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin with a BS in Aerospace Engineering. He was a student of Hans Mark, former Deputy Director of NASA (mentor of Sagan), who recommended Carlson for an internship with NASA Ames. Carlson is currently a test engineer with the White Sands Missile Range and tests military hardware. He uses the test process to capture data, reduce data, and present data in reports.

Prior to earning his bachelor’s degree in engineering, Carlson was a History major with a minor in Religious Studies. The history of ideas is his passion. He has studied the evolutionist creationist debate for more than 30 years and his writing background includes research into the long history of ideas that led to evolution. His 1,000 page manuscript, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos, presents the extant record of history to prove that evolution is an idea born of ancient myth. Carlson’s subsequent work, The Alchemy of Evolution, proves that evolution is an idea born of medieval European alchemy.

Alchemy of EvolutionPurchase this book online.

We’re a Hit – Thanks a Million

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

https://www.seoclerk.com/pics/272191-1h3nGw1411666906.jpg

The Free Press Inc website has just received over 1,000,000 hits; in less than a year. The purpose of this website is to present Christian Conservative viewpoints to an audience without apology. Sharing the truth of God’s Word, conservative political philosophy, and the history of ideas is the heart and soul of Free Press Inc. And thanks to people like you, we are over the top – we’re a hit.

Free Press Inc began last year on 19 September 2015. The site grew slowly at first but this year the number of visitors began to increase as the history of ideas was explored. The number of registered users grew along with the number of comments given. Many people have expressed their thanks for the website in presenting information in a new and responsible way. Now it is my turn to say thank you.

Free Press Inc will continue to bring you quality information with a perspective that will not insult your intelligence or your faith in Christ. True knowledge begins with a respect of God and His Word. Whether we publish for one reader or thousands is not the purpose of this website. Serving the public with truth is. Yet I’m happy to find that the response to Free Press Inc has drawn so much attention.

Thanks a million for visiting the Free Press Inc.

Praying Hands

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

praying hands 2

Original Artwork by Albrecht Durer (1508)

The story behind the artwork of the Praying Hands is one of love. The symbol of the folded hands represents prayer and so much more. It represents self-sacrifice and fidelity for the love of another. This symbol, used Albrecht Durer’s painting (1508), represents the devotion of man and the love of God.

Wedding rituals in medieval Europe borrowed traditions that were meant for other purposes. The ritual of homage where a vassal pledged himself to a Lord was accompanied by the symbol of hands being placed together, palm to palm, as a sign of dedication. This ritual was later used in weddings where the bride placed her hands together as the groom covered them with his own hands in a sign of mutual devotion and fidelity. Together, they would offer themselves in homage to the Lord Jesus in their bond of marriage.

This tradition was familiar to Albrecht Durer and these hands of homage and fidelity are famous in his painting of praying hands. It portrays an oath of fealty between the person praying and God. As God hears our prayers, He surrounds us with his Spirit and blesses us as we pray according to his will. This is a beautiful symbol of love and devotion between God and mankind. However, there is another story behind Durer’s famous painting.

When Albrecht was a little boy, he and his brother Albert made a pact to become artists. They agreed to toss a coin to see who would go to school and who would work in the mines to pay for the other boy’s education. They tossed the coin after Church and Albrecht won. He promised to pay for his brother’s tuition after graduating school 4 years later either with his success as an artist or by going down in the mines himself.

Sadly, when the time came, Albert had lost almost all use of his hands due to the hard working conditions in the mines. Albrecht tried to keep his promise but Albert refused. The hands that Albrecht painted were possibly of his brother’s broken fingers as a symbol of his fidelty. And although we typically see this painting and others like it as a symbol of prayer and devotion, it is a reminder of the fidelity of 2 brothers who sacrificed for one other.

The story of sacrifice is powerful. Jesus said that no greater love has anyone than to give his life for his friends. Jesus took upon himself the curse of our sin at the Cross and paid the penalty of death for us that me might be liberated from the slavery and bondage of sin. We can receive the gift of forgiveness and ask God to pardon us according to the work of Jesus on the Cross. God will forgive you in the name of Jesus who was broken for our sins. And as Jesus rose from the dead, He will give you a new life led by his Holy Spirit.

Praying for forgiveness is the Will of God for your life. Asking God is what prayer is all about. God is already devoted to you and simply seeks an opportunity to share His devotion with you. When you pay homage to God by asking Jesus to become the Lord of your life, you become married to a divine partner in the Spirit who will walk with you throughout all eternity. The story of praying hands is one of homage, devotion, sacrifice, and love.

Please pray this prayer:

God of heaven, I believe in Jesus Christ who died on the Cross for me. I believe that he paid for the penalty of my sin, which I admit I have done. I ask for your forgiveness of my sin and thank you for your love. Please bring me closer to you so that I may know you. By your Holy Spirit, please make in me a clean heart, a renewed spirit, and a right mind that I may do those things that are pleasing to you. Thank you God, Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and now my Father in Heaven. Amen!

 

Review of Bill Nye’s Book, Undeniable (Part 1 of 5)

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

ham nye 1

Introduction

Bill Nye, an evolutionist, and Ken Ham, a creationist, had a debate in February 2014 in which they discussed the topic of whether or not Creationism could stand in the modern context of science. Nye has taken the liberty to write a book, Undeniable (2014), in which he attempts to present a concise view of evolution. Nye presents his thesis of evolution with philosophical zeal but as I read his book I was struck with the fact that he never offered solid empirical evidence of evolution’s reality. Future debates should discuss the question of whether or not Evolution can stand in the context of modern (empirical) science. This review of Bill Nye’s book explores just that question.

Empirical Science – Real Science

First, let’s establish what modern science is. Apart from philosophical science, modern science is testable science called empirical science. Nye’s view of modern science follows the path of, “Observe. Hypothesize. Predict. Experiment.” (Chapter 25) ‘Observe and hypothesize’ is nothing more than building a thesis, which is the work of philosophical science (also called speculative science). ‘Predicting’ is nothing more than falsifying a thesis; the question is asked, ‘what will nature do if the thesis is true?’ And ‘experimenting’ is where the real work of science begins.

The empirical method actually can be summarized as ‘present a thesis,’ ‘falsify a thesis,’ and ‘test the thesis.’ The work of empirical science is focused on the test, from which we gain empirical data. Data is the foundation of modern empirical science. Empirical data yields empirical formulas (math) that are simplified with philosophical mathematical expressions and these expressions become the laws of nature or principles of science.

Engineers are familiar with empirical science. As an engineer, I apply the principles of science that are expressed in mathematical terms to develop technology. Engineering is applied science and engineers are applied scientists who use the mathematical principles of science in their work. The benefits of science are the result of engineering and technology.

So from the modern context of science, we should expect to see 1) Data, 2) Math, and 3) Technology. Unfortunately, Bill Nye focuses exclusively on presenting the thesis in terms of 1) Observe, 2) Hypothesize, and 3) Predict. He fails to expand upon what is required from a test.

Nye’s concept of science is that it should predict discovery, which is not 100% accurate. He fails to present empirical science in the framework of data and math. Galileo taught us to connect the math with the experiment (data) hence beginning the exercise of modern empirical science. Nye is focused on philosophical science and predictions that lead to hopeful discoveries. As a result, Bill Nye is not the ‘science guy’ but has become a ‘philosopher guy.’

  • Hopeful Discoveries

Bill Nye never follows the path of science discovery that comes from empirical tests. Instead of producing data and math from experiments that explain the laws of nature, which in turn produces modern technology, Nye presents an exhaustive rehearsal of philosophical ideas that he uses to build a thesis. And from the thesis, Nye presents what he calls ‘predictions’ that he thinks validates his philosophical viewpoint. As this misses the mark of real empirical science, we can review his long list of hopeful discoveries and see where they fall short of real empirical scientific investigation.

    • Gila Topminnow (Chapter 9)

Nye presents the Gila Topminnow from Mexico (poeciliopsis occidentalis) and cites the work of Robert Vrijenhoek as his source. Nye is convinced that the topminnow can change its reproduction capability from sexual to asexual and then back again if need be. However, this is not the case.

Vrijenhoek explains that the grandchildren of the topminnow can produce sexually or asexually but not both [<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_03.html>]. The Mexican topminnow always reproduces sexually but a hybrid offspring from the topminnow produces offspring that can then reproduce asexually. Nye should review the basic facts here.

Not-withstanding Nye’s initial error, the idea that species can produce sexually or asexually is not a prediction of evolution but a fact of nature. The Bible even says that all life will reproduce according to its own kind, which science has proven it does. There is no problem with sexual or asexual reproduction in a creationist perspective and the topminnow is just one more example of the veracity of God’s Word.

  • Red Queen Principle (Chapter 9)

However, Nye thinks that the capability to improve upon the gene pool of a species is predicted by evolution as sexual reproduction is more capable of warding off disease than asexual reproduction. Nye uses the ‘Red Queen’ principle to explain his view.

Nye borrows the idea of the Red Queen principle, found in Alice in Wonderland, as a resource for his idea of sexual selection leading to a prevention of disease. In this fairy tale, the Red Queen said that it took a great deal of running just to stay in one place. He sees sexual reproduction as a continual exercise limiting disease whereas asexual reproduction does not. But this is not always the case when it comes to close siblings (as the Bible warns against).

The origin of the Red Queen principle came from biologist Leigh Van Valen in 1973, who proposed it as a principle in contrast to his law of extinction. It is used to present a treadmill view of genetic stability and not of evolution.

However, it is clear that God, who created organisms with DNA, provided for genetic stability as the treadmill effect is not a means of upward mobility but of keeping a species healthy. The idea of surviving in a rough environment is not unique to evolution and it is clear that genetics plays a role in keeping species healthy in any given environment. Unfortunately Nye is seeing things ‘through the looking glass.’

  • Walking ‘Fishapod’ (Chapter 2)

Nye considers the ‘fishapod’ (tiktaalik) to be a transitional form between fish swimming in the water and creatures walking on the ground. This hopeful discovery, however, has long been refuted as the available fossils do not show any ability of the skeletal structure to support its weight on the ground.

The idea of transitional forms is certainly a part of the evolutionary tale. However, the Bible tells us that God made the fish that swim in the sea and the creatures that walk on the ground. There is no need for transitional organisms in a biblical world view. And as evolution requires them, there are many examples of such discoveries that lead to disappointment for evolutionists.

  • Walking Whales (Chapter 20)

Nye also thinks whales once walked on the land before going into the sea. A whale has a horizontal tail, so it must have been above ground at one time, he thinks. Then it went into the sea and kept the shape of the horizontal tail. That is a foolish tale based on philosophy. Fossils, however, tell a different story.

Nye presents the species Ambulocetus as a transitional form leading to the evolution of whales from land to sea. However, fossil remains do not show a connection between the pelvis and the spine that could provide any support for the creature walking on the ground. The so-called missing link is missing bones just like the tiktaalik. Strike 2 for this type of hopeful discovery.

  • Dino-to-Bird (Chapter 20)

Nye, like many evolutionists, believe that Archaeopteryx, discovered a few years after Darwin published his book, Origins (1859), was a discovery that validated the theory of evolution as a transitional form of bird from dinosaurs. It is dated at 150 million years old and is consider by some to be the first true bird to evolve from dinosaurs. Evolutionists claim that there were earlier transitional forms and Nye hopes to convince you that he has these hopeful discoveries ready for your review.

Nye’s first attempt at convincing the reader is with the fossil of velociraptor mongoliensis (meaning ‘fast thief from Mongolia’). However, this fossil is dated at 80 million years old and is younger than Archaeopteryx by 70 million years. How can the precursor to Archaeopteryx be younger?

Also, the supposed quill knobs of the raptor are found only on one fossil bone and are not clearly defined like quill knobs on other fossils of real birds [<http://creation.com/jurassic-park-feathers>]. The fact that this is the only evidence of raptors having anything to do with feathers is a poor foundation for the dino-to-bird thesis.

Another raptor to be mistaken as a bird was actually a bird that was presented with the tail of a dinosaur added to it. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis was a composite of two separate species. As told by Xu Xing:

Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.

[National Geographic, 2000]

The idea of transitional forms required by evolution is not required by creationists. The need for hopeful discoveries are driving people to extreme misinterpretations of fossil remains and at times to outright forgeries of fossils.

  • Monkey-to-Man (Chapter 33)

Nye compares the DNA of man and monkey to find similarity in our makeup as a prediction of evolutionary thesis. Human DNA is 97% similar to mountain gorilla DNA and 98.8 % similar to chimpanzee DNA. This is no empirical proof but an association of data used to present a thesis. There is no conclusion of real science but a suggestion leading to hope for one.

Nye also speculates that modern man is only a fraction of a percent different from those who preceded him in the ancient past (Neanderthal Man, etc.). However, modern fossil evidence [Marvin L. Lubenow; Bones of Contention] proves that there is a unity of ancient mankind as the time periods in which various species of man lived are beginning to merge together into one time period. Nye misses this key element of the unity of mankind as ancient and modern man are one. Nye is likely to be familiar with the many hopeful discoveries of ancient man (Lucy, Peking Man, etc.) that are based on forgeries.

  • Monkey-to-Man (Chapter 32)

Nye is also familiar with the inherent racism in evolutionary thinking. The idea that various races developed over time leads to some modern humans being lower on the scale of being closer to monkeys whereas others are higher on the scale. If Nye wants to believe in the descent of man from monkeys, he has to accept a degree of racism in his views.

However, Nye takes a page out of the creationist book to argue for an African Eve that will calm the storm of charges against evolution and its long past with scientific racism. Ironically, if not hypocritically, Nye dismisses the Biblical view of Adam and Eve and presents his own view of the unity of mankind. His lengthy argument for the distribution of color (aka race) is interesting but the unity of mankind cannot come from evolution; only racism can come from evolution. It is clear that the only true perspective that offers a non-racist view is creationism, not evolution. And the hopeful discovery here cannot be used to validate evolution but creationism.

  • The Miller Urey Experiment (Chapter 35)

Nye is sparked over the famous Miller/Urey experiment, which for many evolutionists represents an empirical validation of a speculative thesis. An electric spark supposedly created life in a primitive ocean and atmosphere and was modeled by the famous experiment. Sadly, this type of evolutionary hype is typical of people who blindly accept the tenants of their faith without questioning the source. This hopeful discovery in the lab was not a unique experiment that validated a predictive theory but a repeat of an older experiment from which the theory was based.

Stanley Miller was a grad student of Harold Urey and conducted chemical experiments in which he was able to synthesize amino acids in a solution that resembled the evolutionist’s perspective of an ancient ocean and atmosphere. This experiment was based upon the Oparin/Haldane thesis. However, history records that Miller was not the first to conduct this type of experiment.

In 1913, 40 years before the experiment conducted by Stanley Miller, Walther Loeb conducted a similar experiment in Germany in which he synthesized amino acids in solution. Loeb, however, was not searching of the origins of life. Miller later gave Loeb credit for his work in producing amino acids, although it is rarely touched upon by those reviewing this topic.

In 1927, E.C.C. Baly of Liverpool England published his work in which he produced amino acids in a solution of NH3 and H20 and an atmosphere of CO2. J.B.S. Haldane read this paper and 2 years later (1929) published an article on the “Origin of Life,” citing Baly’s work. Haldane speculated that from a reduced (CO2) atmosphere amino acids could be generated that might produce life. The Oparin/Haldane thesis was based on experiments already conducted long before Miller did his work in 1953.

The truth is that the Miller/Urey experiment did not validate a speculative thesis but was based upon earlier experiments that subsequent theses were based upon. Experiment leading to thesis and then leading to experiment is not the process of predictive theories being validated. This is neither an example of empirical science or a hopeful discovery.

This hopeful discovery is more like grandma making chicken soup, daughter writing down the recipe, and granddaughter following the recipe to make soup that tastes just like grandma used to make. Miller just followed a recipe for amino acid soup (Umm Umm Good).

The experiment is simple enough. Of the 20 naturally occurring amino acids, 18 amino acids are composed of the 4 basic elements of H, N, O, C. So to begin making amino acid soup, you use need to start with a basic stock of atoms for amino acid soup (H, N, O, C) in the form of molecules (NH3, H20, H2, and CH4). Then cook (add energy to) this stock of soup (temperature and cooking times may vary). As a result of the added energy, the atoms will split off of the molecule when hot and after cooling they will randomly recombine with other atoms into new molecular combinations. This process is called ‘dissociation and recombination.’ Nothing spectacular here.

The Miller/Urey experiment did not create life from non-life but amino acid (prebiotic) soup. This is the soup that emergent life would need to eat for breakfast if it emerged or it would die of starvation. Subsequent proof has been presented by creationists that life cannot start from amino acid first theory or even protein first theory [<http://creation.com/origin-of-life>]. And because the Miller/Urey experiment synthesized both right and left handed amino acids, these amino acids could not produce proteins that are based only on right handed amino acids.

So there are numerous flaws to the idea of life coming from non-life that were never addressed by this famous experiment in 1953. And far from being an empirical validation of a predictive thesis, it is an example of experiment leading to theory leading to experiment. A hopeful discovery that is more wishful thinking than anything else.

  • The Penzias and Wilson Discovery (Chapter 2)

Nye claims he personally met Robert Wilson, who along with Arno Penzias, made the modern discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB, CBR, or CMBR). This is another hopeful discovery that Nye presents thinking it establishes the origin of the universe and validates the Big Bang theory. However, upon closer scrutiny, we can see another picture of predictions based in part upon earlier measurements of data that only seem to be validated by later measurements of data.

In the late 1930s and early 1940s, scientists like Walter S. Adams and Andrew McKellar were studying the phenomena of background radiation in space. In 1941, McKellar used Adams’ data to derive a background temperature of 2.3 K in the microwave band of 2.6 mm. This was the first time the microwave background radiation was accurately recorded; and it was more than 20 years before the famous Penzias and Wilson discoveries.

Although McKellar’s discovery went largely unknown, Fred Hoyle used McKellar’s information in 1950 when refuting George Gamow’s work [The Observatory (Vol. 70, p. 194-197 (1950)), a review of a book coauthored by George Gamow and C. L. Critchfield titled, “Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources” (1949)] on predicting the background temperature along with his speculations about the cosmic expansion of the universe.

All of the major researchers in the field of cosmology, Gammow, Alpher, Herman, Dicke, etc. would have been familiar with McKellar’s work through Hoyle’s review. As a result, work on the Big Bang theory led to predictions of a temperature from 5 K to 50 K in the microwave band in several publications over the course of several years following.

The measurements made by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 were not an attempt to verify the Big Bang theory or cosmic expansion; Wilson didn’t even accept the idea of cosmic expansion. Penzias and Wilson were working at Bell Labs when they made their measurement of 3 K for the CBR that was a constant source of noise in the background. A friend of Penzias and Wilson, who knew the cosmologist Robert Dicke, made the connection between discovery and prediction. Since then, the cosmologists have hailed the Penzias/Wilson discovery as their own hopeful discovery.

The association of measurements with the Big Bang theory is a hopeful discovery that has yet to prove anything. Although claimed as a proof of the Big Bang and cosmic evolution, the discovery of Penzias and Wilson was nothing more than a later measurement similar to an earlier measurement, with a set of predictive theories in between the measurements. Evolution is not a predictive theory as much as a hopeful one; one of faith.

Although Bill Nye presents a mountain of information to support his thesis of evolution, his arguments are primarily philosophical. In the end, Nye fails to validate his thesis empirically. Far from being the ‘science guy,’ Bill Nye has now become the ‘philosopher guy.’

Author Bios

  • Bill Nye

Bill Nye is a graduate of Cornell University with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. While at Cornell, he attended an astronomy class taught by Carl Sagan. Nye later worked with Boeing in Seattle, Washington where he produced training films that he starred in. Bill Nye has enjoyed his lengthy career as a science educator working in many television comedy roles and even Dancing with the Stars. His experience with ‘edutainment’ includes his role as the ‘science guy’ in his popular TV series.

Nye has recently become the Executive Director of The Planetary Society, an organization dedicated to exploring planets in our solar system. Nye is also involved in the popular science of Global Warming and has his own Climate Lab at the Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, California. Nye is also involved in the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a secular humanist organization attempting to expose scientific errors. Nye’s recent book, Undeniable, has drawn praise from people whose skepticism runs against the ideas of Creation Science. Nye continues to appear on TV and write on subjects of interest.

  • James Carlson

James Carlson is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin with a BS in Aerospace Engineering. He was a student of Hans Mark, former Deputy Director of NASA (mentor of Sagan), who recommended Carlson for an internship with NASA Ames. Carlson is currently a test engineer with the White Sands Missile Range and tests military hardware. He uses the test process to capture data, reduce data, and present data in reports.

Prior to earning his bachelor’s degree in engineering, Carlson was a History major with a minor in Religious Studies. The history of ideas is his passion. He has studied the evolutionist creationist debate for more than 30 years and his writing background includes research into the long history of ideas that led to evolution. His 1,000 page manuscript, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos, presents the extant record of history to prove that evolution is an idea born of ancient myth. Carlson’s subsequent work, The Alchemy of Evolution, proves that evolution is an idea born of medieval European alchemy.

Alchemy of EvolutionPurchase this book online.