Category Archives: Creationism

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth… (first sentence in the Bible)

Life in Our Solar System

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

planets

Since I was a little boy, I saw the solar system as a lifeless system where planets had incredible heat, no water, gaseous storms, etc.; all things that do not provide for an environment where life can occur. Look at the asteroid belt past Mars; was that once a planet that broke apart? Was Jupiter just the trash can for all the gasses in our solar system? Everything in our solar system shows a lack of conditions that favor life; except the planet earth.

The Bible tells us that God not only created all matter in the universe with his Word (“Let there be Light”), He also provided for a special creation on earth. Apparently, the waters of our planet once covered everything, so God separated the waters into 2 regions, those above and below the ‘firmament’ in the sky (those in the sky later flooded the earth). Then, God separated the waters on the earth from the land to make dry ground and the seas. He then created the plants on the earth; the sun, the moon, and the stars over the earth. He created life in the oceans, in the sky, and on the ground; the fish, the birds, and land animals were all created specially by God. Then God created mankind. So, the work of God was special in that it didn’t evolve but was the divine act of God in our solar system on one planet – earth.

This is the presentation of the creation week from the Book of Genesis. This outlines a special place for the earth that is unique in our solar system. The other planets around our sun are not suited for life; it is apparent that God did not create them for life or prepare them to support life. The idea that mankind can explore the solar system, or the galaxy, for new places to live is just fiction.

However, I do not object to space exploration or the pursuit of possible life elsewhere on other planets. I just don’t expect to find any.

Years ago, a professor at the UT School of Aerospace Engineering, Dr. Hans Mark, told us of a conference he had with religious leaders. They were given the question of whether or not there was life elsewhere in the solar system or galaxy and they routinely responded by saying no; but if there was life their response would be, ‘Praise God!’ This is why I do not object to exploring the possibility of life elsewhere because it is all the handy work of God and not of evolution. However, there are more important things on earth to be spending our tax dollars on.

Each and every planet in our solar system is a witness to lifeless environments. Mercury is so hot on one side we would fry a person and cold on the other such that we would freeze. Venus has toxic hot gasses under intense pressures that cannot sustain life. Mars has no real life of its own despite the science fiction movies. The gas planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are all one big toxic storm. And if you consider Pluto and Eris as planets, they are so far away from the Sun that Eris is considered to have a frozen atmosphere incapable of supporting life.

But then there are the moons of the planets. If there was life on them, that would be interesting. But these are as inhospitable for life as the planets. Some conjecture that there could be life below the ice cap on Jupiter’s moons, Ganymede and Europa. There are plans to explore this planet in the future. One of Saturn’s moons, Enceladus, erupts icy plumes on a regular basis. These ice moons are not suited for life and it is unlikely that any will be found.

The idea of life on other planets is one of evolution; if it occurred here on earth then why not elsewhere in the universe. Remember the fundamental law of biology – biogenesis; life comes from life. Evolution denies this fundamental law of biology and advocates abiogenesis – life emerging from lifeless chemicals. This has never been witnessed or proven by experimental science but it is a belief held by many who search for life outside of our own planet.

As we see the creation record of the Bible telling us of special creation on the planet earth, it is hard to look past the fact that there is no life in our solar system beyond earth that we can find (try as we have) and that the rest of the solar system appears to be a random display of general creation during the creation week. It appears that once again, the Bible has the better explanation for the origins of life on our planet as the remaining planets are totally lifeless. Once again, the record of the Bible proves to be true.

The Evolution of Super Heroes

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Super Jesus

The comic book characters seen on TV and in the movies are very entertaining. We love stories of good guys beating up the bad guys. We love a victorious fight. We thrill at the sights and sounds of adventure and super powers. But in all of the fun, have you ever stopped to think about where these super guys came from?

Perhaps the most famous super hero is Super Man. He grew up on a planet far away from the earth called Krypton. His parents sent him to earth because their planet was disintegrating. And on earth he would experience power like no one else. This is all good fun and games but look beneath it all and there is something more to the story.

Evolution is supposed to have occurred on earth (never proven scientifically) and if here then why not there in outer space? Obviously, there would be no people on another planet without evolution so we find a hidden factor in this super hero’s story with the theory of evolution. And evolution has given us another type of super man.

A dark chapter in history was in the 20th century when the Nazis took over Germany politically and instituted the ideas of evolution in their country. The idea of ‘super men’ was that the Germans were the ‘master race’ of mankind. Granted, Super Man took on these ‘super men’ and defeated them WWII. But any notion of a super man harkens back to the ideas of evolution.

Turn then to other super heroes who through some accident of chemistry, medicine, bug bite, or radiation evolved to a higher plane of being. We find the Incredible Hulk, Captain America, the Fantastic Four, Spider Man, etc. all evolving due to some evolutionary effect on their body by these accidental forces. Evolution was once thought to have occurred by such random chance accidents that science hoped to discover. The science fiction of the early 20th century evolution has taken on new form with these super powered people.

The Omega Man was another evolutionary vision presented by Teilhard de Chardin in his book, The Phenomenon of Man. According to Chardin, evolution would continue to lead mankind into greater stages of development as we’re just passing through this stage. This idea has since found its way into popular science fiction with a different set of super heroes.

Recall the science fiction movie, Star Trek 1, where the captain of the enterprise (Kirk was an admiral then) was joined with V’Ger (Voyager 6) to bridge the separation between man and machine. The movie played on the idea of the creator, who is mankind, and the machine, man’s creation, to suggest that evolution would take form in the union of man and machine. Flying through space like the gods of mythology, the crew of Star Trek were in a sense super heroes.

Also witness the ‘force’ behind the Star Wars movies. This force supposedly came from the ‘midi-chlorians’ that reside in the cells of all living things. The word ‘midi-chlorians’ is derived from the mitochondria and chloroplasts that provide energy for animal and plant cells. These ‘midi-chlorians’ are supposed to have a symbiotic relationship with their living hosts. This idea came from the symbiotic theory of evolution, which says that long ago, separate bacteria joined together to form the mitochondria within cells. Again, these super heroes of space travel are a form of super hero based upon the ideas of evolution.

I admit to enjoying these types of movies and will probably see many more of them in the coming years. However, the dark side of these super people is that they are no match for the greatest super hero of them all – the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In fact, it may be possible for people to miss their opportunity to connect with this real super person by focusing on these lesser characters of myth and fiction.

Jesus was and is the Creator of the universe. He is the express image of God and the very person of God. He came to the earth in human form as Immanuel and lived with people only to die for them. He not only paid for the penalty of mankind’s sin, he rose from the dead like no other person before or since. He saved all of mankind with his sacrifice and gave us the forgiveness of sin, eternal life, His Holy Spirit, and much much more.

My prayer for you is that you find God leading you to faith in Jesus Christ. In Jesus, you can have a spirit transformation that is real; not a fictional evolution. You can grow in God’s goodness and grace and perform super human acts of kindness like forgiving your neighbor and loving your enemies. The Love of God is a powerful force that not only changes lives, it provides hope for a better tomorrow. There is so much that you will discover from the Truth of God’s Word about Jesus. Isn’t it time to put down the comic books and pick up the Bible?

Turn to the book of Revelations for starters and see the drama that unfolds therein. There is no story like it anywhere. John goes into the future to witness events in the last days; a vision of Jesus Christ. He writes them down and returns to the first century in Israel. We then read about the future from this book in the past from an eye witness. The visions in the book are technicolor beyond what cinema can portray. And there is a special blessing for reading this one particular book in the Bible (book of books). But there is more to discover in the rest of the Bible. Revelations is the last book in the Bible.

Super heroes can be fun toys to play with but God has a greater purpose in leading you to Jesus. He wants to make a super human out of you. The word ‘super’ means ‘above’. You can have super powers when you are led of the Holy Spirit, forgive others, share your faith, pray for the needs of people, etc. Living above the ordinary nature of mankind’s sin is what living the Christian life is all about.

So, while we have fun with these comic book characters, recognize the evolutionary origin that they went through and the perhaps subtle message that leads one away from God and the person of Jesus. The lingering myth of evolution is sure to move one away from God, the Creator – Jesus. Walking by faith in Jesus in your day to day life will make you a super hero in the eyes of God. And who knows what work of wonders awaits you as a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ.

How Evolution Really Works

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Evolution

Evolution is poorly understood, even by those who believe deeply in it. The truth is that evolution is not a process whereby species transform into new kinds of species. Instead, species adapt for their survival in various settings by simple mutations. Species transformation is a myth but species adaptation is a fact. These two types of ‘evolution’ have often been called macro evolution and micro evolution and they are not the same. More so, one does not lead to the other.

Most creationists, like myself, shy away from supporting anything to do with evolution. Evolution is typically couched in terms of species transformation, which creationists, again like me, reject entirely. However, most creationists accept species variation within a particular ‘kind’ (category of species) and accept the notion of micro evolution in principle. Yet again, most creationists do not choose to use the term ‘evolution’ in the ‘micro’ sense or any other sense.

Yet we need to be real with people. Evolution does occur for species variation within a particular kind of species. Dogs do not become cats, mice do not become men, etc.. Species transformation has never been witnessed in the present world or the past. It is all a fiction of the mind. Yet experimental science has been studying genetics for over 100 years; genetics is the modern term for micro evolution. And within this context we can examine evolution and its mechanisms.

So micro evolution functions on a scale of time that we can observe. We don’t need millions or billions of years to study its slow progress because it happens on a generational scale. Ernst Mayer even criticized Richard Dawkins for missing this difference between micro and macro evolution. Chance and genetics is not a function of macro evolution but one of micro evolution. The science of genetics (micro evolution) is one that can be studied. Theories can be falsified, tested, and data yields mathematical principles of science. However, this is not true for macro evolution, a theory that cannot be falsified, tested, or presented in real scientific terms.

A key point to observe among all the strife and debate is that there is a reality here. What that reality is, is hotly contested for many religious reasons – theistic and atheistic. Set aside religion for a moment and learn how the natural world really works and you should understand that when people confuse macro evolution with micro evolution, they usually turn genetics into species transformation, which genetics has never done. Species only mutate (genetics) in order to adapt to their surroundings for survival. This is a key point to remember. Those who miss it, miss it.

Darwin got some things right but one thing he got clearly wrong. He believed in species transformation and missed the discovery that was in his hand all along. What he got right is simple:

  1. Species do vary; we call it genetics.
  2. Natural selection is the means by which species vary in order to survive in hostile environments.
    1. Population dynamics (Malthus) describes one type of selection pressure.
    2. Biogeography (Alexander von Humboldt) describes two types of selection pressures.
      1. Climate
      2. Geography
  3. Descent with modification was Darwin’s explanation of the multiplied variety of species, which is another aspect of genetics.
    1. Evolution is an embryological term associated with the debunked idea of recapitulation. Associated with species transformation, it is actually an incorrect term to use. Herbert Spencer actually popularized this term, not Darwin.

I agree with these 3 aspects of Darwin’s explanation of the variation of the species. This presents us with a foundation for further genetic research and discovery. However, introducing the idea of species transformations, beyond genetic research, is debilitating to biological research.

Looking into the past, we can see the work of many researchers into both macro and micro evolution. Sifting through their work to dismiss the idea of species transformation, we may find insights into species mutations. In other words, we don’t have to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, disputed and refuted Darwin’s explanation of evolutionary mechanisms (gemmules) and presented his own explanation. Galton spoke of the laws of deviation and regression. (Karl Pearson later used Galton’s ideas to present the idea of a standard deviation.) However, in the day Galton presented it, deviation may refer to the many variations that species undergo randomly whereas regression is the artificial norm established within the various settings based upon selection pressures to provide a species with adaptation for survival. There is no standard regression to a new norm but this is a possible mechanism of natural selection.

Herbert Spencer spoke of things like the ‘survival of the fittest’ but thought this was a mechanism for species transformation. Instead, species do survive for being the fittest according to natural selection in various environments. The mechanism is genetic adaptation not transformation. Survival of the fittest was not Darwin’s term but it has merit for genetic research.

Seawall Wright spoke of a fitness landscape where species ascend upwards. However, he apparently dismissed Darwin’s perspective that species descend with modification. Instead of starting at the bottom of the ‘landscape’, species should be represented as starting at the top and descend downwards through genetic mutation. This leads to further research in terms of genetic optimization in the earliest parent group (created design). This might be a means of discovery for treatments of disease and other health problems.

Each of these examples shows a misunderstanding of reality on the part of key evolutionists. If only they could accept the limits of evolution as species adaptation for survival, not transformation, they would hold both lock and key in the same hand. Sadly, their religious bias against God prevents them from real discovery. I encourage more research into micro evolution – genetics. The promise is great for the future of mankind.

A-Terrorism

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Nye pic

Bill Nye, a Religious Atheist, wants to:

Imprison people who believe in God,

Deny them their Right to Vote, and

Indoctrinate their Children to his way of thinking.

This is the face of the future.

[see note below]

Atheistic terrorism is growing in the United States. It may not be obvious but the definition of terrorism is as close to defining radical atheism as anything I’ve seen. I’m not saying that all atheists are terrorists; but there are radicalized atheists who have a religious/political agenda to end the American way of life that is centered upon a universal respect and reverence of the Creator God.

The U.S. military has been fighting Islamic terrorism for decades, at least since the 1980s. The DoD has a definition for terrorism that provides insight into another kind of a-terrorism that we see in the U.S.

Although there is no universal definition for terrorism, the Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as the unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political. [Joint Publication 3-07.2 (JP 3-07.2); Antiterrorism; 24 November 2010.]

Atheists use a mischaracterization of the Separation of Church and State to secularize American society and government. Although they carry the cloak of the law, their work is actually unlawful. By the use of litigation, religious radicalized atheists issue the threat violence to instill fear and coerce people in society and government. These a-terrorists (atheistic terrorists) are religiously, politically, and ideologically motivated by their atheistic beliefs to pursue the religious political goal of a secular world.

The definition of terrorism by the DoD is a near match to the work of religious/political atheists who wave the threat of a violation of the separation of church and state around as a bully club to get their way. Sadly, the U.S. Court system has supported them in their unremitting reign of terror.

My own definition of terrorism is slightly different than the DoD’s version.

Terrorism is the use of belligerent force (criminal or military) from a minority group who is willing to overthrow the majority authority because they feel underrepresented religiously, politically, economically, or ideologically. Terrorism begins in the home country where this belligerence force dominates a local population. Once domesticated by violence, terrorism is exported to other countries where this belligerence continues.

This definition provides a deeper perspective as to the domestication of terrorism. A-Terrorists are a minority group in America (again, not all atheists are a-terrorists). They feel underrepresented religiously, politically, and ideologically as a majority of Americans believe in God and not evolution. And as we have seen with recent campaigns, the Democrat Party has not only tried to kick God out of its Party platform, they sponsored secular campaigns like Hillary Clinton’s. Once domesticated (Democrats) it is exported (Clinton as Secretary of State/Presidential Candidate) worldwide.

Defining the problem is the start of solving the problem. This website has repeatedly defined the proper historical definition of the Separation of Church and State and shown the atheist version to be unfounded and illegitimate. Although a secularized Court system in America facilitates the secular agenda of religious atheists, it is without legitimacy.

Recent activity by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) demonstrates their form of a-terrorism. They are willing to sue anyone who remotely connects religion with government. The idea that there is a right to a ‘freedom from religion’ is born of the Soviet idea of a ‘right to anti-religious propaganda.’ Religious atheism was combined with State power during the era of the Soviet Union to terrorize people who believed in God. This was an atheistic terrorist state that domesticated political violence against religious people and then exported its methods to the U.S. Madalyn Murray O’Hair is but one example. The FFRF is an example of how this type of violence, once domesticated in Russia and exported to the U.S. is now being domesticated in the U.S.

We are not about to change the foundation of groups like the FRFF, which is the U.S. Court system, in the foreseeable future. The Courts will continue to misuse the First Amendment to facilitate religious and radical atheism. But identifying the a-terrorism symbiosis that exists between religious atheism and the Courts is a start to bring it to an end.

Religious freedom is not freedom from religion, it is what America was founded upon. Our history is replete with examples of people fleeing religious persecution abroad and migrating to the U.S. for the freedom of religion. It is time to take a stand against the a-terrorism of religious a-theism.

Notes to figure above are based upon Nye’s own book, Undeniable:

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).

The science is clear; certain church-derived ethics reflect an understanding that’s murky at best and just plain ignorant at worst. Perhaps we should be prosecuting people who espouse these views…

Nye even thinks there needs to be a religious test for voters that would exclude creationists from voting (Chapter 2).

I hope that all of us will consider the potential consequences of this sort of thinking – or nonthinking. If there were a test of competency for voters, how well would they fare?

Bill Nye has clearly said that the children of pastors need to be rescued (Chapter 2) from their parents and indoctrinated with evolutionary thinking.

Here’s hoping we can work together to bring the children of the creationist’ preachers’ flocks to a more enlightened, boundless way of thinking about the world around us.

The Light of Creation

© Original content written by James R. Carlson

Light of Creation

Argument from 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 6:19-21 (KJV)

The false science Paul was referring to is philosophical science of the ancient philosophers and not modern empirical science. Experimental (empirical) science began with Galileo in the 17th century when he told us to couple mathematics with experiments to discover the laws of God’s nature. Modern cosmology and cosmogony is largely philosophical and tells us that matter existed at the beginning of the universe. This matter apparently had a Big Bang that then formed all the worlds around us including our own world. However, this may be nothing more than science falsely so called.

The philosophy circulating in the days of the Apostles would lead one to believe in a chaos of matter that preceded the present order of things. Certainly, myth taught this and so too did the ancient Greek philosophers who borrowed from the ideas of ancient myth. But the Bible teaches something clearly different from myth. God spoke light into the darkness to create the universe.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:1 – 3 (KJV)

Light first entered the darkness, not some primordial mass that had a Big Bang. Matter first is a primary tenant of evolution (materialism) but if we accept the Biblical account of creation one may present an thesis of energy first instead.

If we turn to the world of empirical science, we find the thesis that has been tested, which shows that the square of the speed of light, coupled with matter, equals energy (e=mc2). The idea of matter first is not required except by those who believe in the ideas established by the standard cosmology. Instead of focusing on the materialism of the Big Bang, one could focus on a universe that began with energy first. We can take God’s Word literally and say that light was first spoken by God into the darkness and matter and energy entered into the universe as a result.

Consider that all matter has electrons that move at the speed of light. Atoms, once created by light, are at the foundation of all matter. All atoms have various levels of energy wherein electrons travel around the nucleus of an atom; these levels are called valences. If the energy of an atom increases, electrons move to a higher level or quantum of energy. And if an electron moves to a lower level of energy, it emits a photon of light. Matter is continuously sending and receiving light. As God spoke light into the darkness to create the universe and all that is in it, we can say that we are born from the stuff of light.

Evolutionists believe that due to a Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the lighter elements were formed from original chaotic matter. This idea of matter first becoming hydrogen and helium is a part of the standard cosmology. Afterwards, stellar nucleosynthesis transformed the lighter elements into heavier elements that eventually became you and me. Evolutionists believe that we are formed of the stuff of stars. But a better idea, taken from the truth of the Bible, is that we are made of the stuff of light; the same Light that God spoke into the darkness to create the universe.

Ancient mythical ideas of matter first persisted for thousands of years and eventually the Greek philosophers tried to make rational sense out of the physical universe. Anaxagoras once postulated that the universe was made up of tiny particles and that these particles could be divided infinitely into smaller particles. Leucippus and Democritus, who were later called the Atomists, offered a different explanation that matter could only be divided finitely into one small particle. And when the discovery of the ‘atom’ came along, people began to agree with the atomists philosophy of a limited division of matter into ‘atoms.’

But ‘atoms’ can be divided into smaller ‘subatomic’ particles called electrons, neutrons, and protons. The smallest particle called an ‘atom’ now has smaller particles that are called ‘subatomic.’ Is there really any such thing as an ‘atom’? The term ‘subatomic’ is an oxymoron. While what we call an ‘atom’ definitely does exist, the philosophy behind it may be flawed. Subatomic particles can be further divided into quarks, etc., etc. Physics has proven that there are many more divisions that can be made of matter and Anaxagoras may have been right. Or was he?

As we are finding by experimental science that matter can be divided into smaller and smaller particles, there are levels (quanta) whereby these particles have a stable form. The elusive Higgs Boson is considered the smallest of subatomic particles and its mass is measured at 125 GeV/c2. Expressing mass in terms of energy (eV/c2) is a common practice in particle physics relating mass to energy in terms of e=mc2. Eventually, dividing matter ever smaller may realize a point where it no longer remains matter but energy. Speculations being what they are (often unproven), we may postulate that matter can only be subdivided so far until the smaller quantum of matter reaches a quantum level of energy.

Reversing this may shed some light on how matter began in the first place. An energy first cosmology would provide a mechanism whereby energy first invaded the universe. If energy first invaded the universe of darkness faster than the speed of light, when the speed of light slowed down to a constant velocity as it is at present, then matter would have been derived from this energy as light slowed down. If e=mc2, then energy first will yield matter when light reached its present velocity. And as the quantum of energy began to develop into the quantum of matter, this would lead to larger particles and eventually the creation of what we call atoms.

Even those who still hold to the idea of a Big Bang where matter was the first thing in the universe (where it came from no one knows) say that the universe inflated faster than the speed of light. This fact of the standard cosmology leaves the door open to other ideas of the origins of the universe such as energy first. An energy first cosmology/cosmogony will provide an explanation of the origin of matter and the idea of matter transmitted across the universe faster than the speed of light.

Returning to Genesis chapter 1 we find that God created the universe by His spoken Word. His first word was Light. And through this we have the foundation of the physical universe in which we live. We do not have to subscribe to the standard cosmology to make sense of what we see in the universe. We can continue to rely upon God’s Word to make sense of the universe in which we live.

Argument from the Bible

We read many passages in the Bible about the Creator God. We find many theories about God’s creative work in theology and philosophy. But what does the New Testament have to say about God’s work in creation?

Turning to the book of Hebrews, we read in chapter 11 verse 3:

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

This verse tells us how to understand Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 – 4:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God did not create the universe from preexisting chaotic material. God spoke Light into a great void of nothingness when He said, “Let there be light,” and the light entered into the darkness. This we understand by faith as we take God at His Word.

The usual translation of this passage in Genesis leaves some people thinking that chaos (void) was first created by God or that chaos and matter preceded God and then God gave order to the chaos. This, however, is a false reading of Genesis 1:2, born of ancient myth, as Hebrews 11:3 shows. The things we see are not made by the things that appear but are made by the Word of God.

The actual word for “created” in Genesis 1:2 is the Hebrew word “bara,” which means to create only as God can; often this means creation from nothing. God can create something from nothing and he can also create something from something. God, like man, can fashion something from existing materials that He also created. This type of creative work is referred to in the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 1 as “asah.” Mankind can only fashion something from existing materials whereas God can create with his spoken Word. We are clearly told in Hebrews 11:3 that God spoke the worlds (universe) into existence.

God uniquely created (bara) many things with his Word: Stars, plants, fish, birds, and animals. Each were created complete and whole as God saw that they were “good.” God created by divine acts with his Word in some passages of Genesis chapter 1 but in other passages His creative work used the stuff that was already available that he had created beforehand. Mankind, however, was made from the clay of the earth.

Argument for Salvation

The Word of God is the foundation of God’s creation and Light was the first word spoken. We even see in the New Testament where Jesus is God in the beginning who created all things as the express Word of God. In John chapter 1 verses 1-5 we read:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

As the Word in this passage is Jesus, the first word that was spoken was Light. Jesus is the light of the world and that light shines into the darkness not only of creation but also of the human heart. This is a light that provides mankind with spiritual way through the darkness of life.

Again, we see in this passage the idea that all creation began with the Word of God. Light entered the darkness of the universe, which created the physical stuff we see all around us. In essence, we were physically created by the stuff of light and we are also recreated by faith in the person of Jesus Christ who is our spiritual light. Our darkened hearts are enlightened by His Word in us and as we walk in the Light of Life (Jesus) our lives grow brighter and brighter.

Please pray this prayer:

God of heaven, you are the Light of Life. I believe in Jesus Christ, your Son 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. Please shine your Light into my heart. 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 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.

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.

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.

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.