Why Nye Doeth Fly Awry

Bill Nye has said that the creation/evolution debate is not a religious or theological one, but strictly scientific. He has claimed that he does not attack any religion, but that the creation worldview is simply unscientific and therefore untenable. He also admits that he does not know much about theology. At least he's right about that last part. 

What he fails to understand is that once one acknowledges the existence of the Creator and Owner of the universe; one automatically allows for the possibility of supernatural miracles. Once one places their faith in Jesus Christ, through whom the universe was made, (John 1:1-5, Hebrews 1:1-2) it becomes entirely unnecessary to accept the evolutionary worldview. Keep in mind the fact that evolution and creation are simply variant interpretations of the same scientific data. 

The evolutionary interpretation of scientific data was first used and developed by individuals who began first by rejecting God as the Creator of the universe. They did not disprove God, but they began with the assumption of atheism, and interpreted the data according to that assumption. Thus, the evolutionary view is, from the very start, an attempt to explain the complexity of the universe and life, without God. 

However, modern science first began to thrive in Europe because of the conviction of such notables as Francis Bacon, Copernicus, and Isaac Newton that the universe was made by an orderly Creator and sovereign Lawgiver. Without faith in an orderly Creator/Owner of the universe, there is no rational ground on which to expect the universe to operate in an orderly way, that can be systematically observed and studied in the first place.

Nye mocks the idea of the Genesis Flood and Noah's Ark. But on what basis does he mock the biblical account? His mocking is based on the assumption that there is no supernatural God. Thus, he actually is attacking faith, in spite of what he says. He recently said that he would like to challenge the Creation Museum to build a real ark, just like Noah's, and put it to sea for a full year. 

He, of course, is skeptical that such an endeavor would be successful. And perhaps it would take Divine intervention to preserve the Ark during the year of the Genesis Flood; but no more so than it would take for a hiker to survive a brutal encounter with a bear or a lion, and such miracles have happened. However, the dimensions of Noah's Ark (500ft long, 75ft wide, and 45ft high) were good and proper. There are many other examples of large wooden ships, with similar dimensions to those of Noah's Ark, in ancient history (1).

But here's the point: Bill Nye begins with the assumption that Divine intervention should be completely ruled out from the start. But the creation model is free from that constraint right at the outset. We creationists believe that the Creator/Owner of the universe is real. And we interpret the scientific data according to His word. In fact, the intervention of an orderly Creator and sovereign Lawgiver, is the very foundation on which we expect there to be orderly laws in the universe at all. 

Now, we can show that the biblical creation interpretation makes more sense in a lot of ways. We can point to the complexity and order of genetic information (2, 3). We can point to discrepancies between the geological layers and fossils on the one hand, and the doctrines of evolution and deep time on the other. Polysrate fossils (4), soft tissue found in fossils (5) , unfossilized remains of dinosaurs (6, 7) are all very good; we like those. Dating methods that come up drastically wrong when used on rocks of already-known ages (8), lunar recession (9) and the faint sun paradox (10, 11) are all very good points as well. 

But the starting point of belief in the orderly Creator and sovereign Lawgiver of the universe is the most important thing. This faith gives us the rational ground on which to expect orderly laws in the universe; yet also sustains the flexibility to allow for the possibility of supernatural miracles. Apart from this faith, there is no reason on which to expect order or miracles, either one, in the universe. 

The flight of Bill Nye's thoughts is off course. And Jesus Christ tells why that is. He said, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). The power of God is the only reason that there even is order in the universe at all. And so, as a scientist, Nye's life work is the study of God's work - the universe. Yet he begins his study with the assumption that the One who created and reigns over the universe does not exist. So Nye's is not an intellectual error so much as it is a spiritual error. But that error misinforms the way he interprets the data. He interprets the data in accordance with a worldview that undercuts, and mocks itself. 

Now, since the expulsion from Eden, we are all born with a fallen, sinful nature; characterized by enmity against God who is love (John 4:8), and who originally created humanity in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27) for the purpose of love (Matthew 22:37-40). Enmity against God is the spiritual error that causes all spiritual error. But like Saul of Tarsus, (Acts 9) sinners may surrendering to God, and have the blinders of sin removed from their spiritual eyes; that they may see, and fly aright. Everyone who trusts in Jesus Christ is reconciled to God. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus".

Galileo vs. Darwin - the Psalms vs. Genesis

Introduction

Often times, supporters of evolutionism will call to our remembrance the trial of Galileo. To the evolutionist this is an illustration of the more contemporary debate between creation and evolutionism. But there are two key differences between these two controversies.

Galileo vs. Darwin

One key difference is that Galileo made use of observational science to show that the solar system is heliocentric instead of geocentric. His finding was not interpretive, it was based on observable facts.

In contrast, Charles Darwin's work was interpretive. His view of origins is based on deductive reasoning, not science. 

Darwin wrote: "No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as this; for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast of South America, before I had seen a true coral reef." 

Operational science is characterized by inductive observation, not deductive reasoning.

Darwin also wrote "In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won't fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling."

Darwin never observed humans evolving from molecules. He imagined that scenario before hand. And than he, and others since him, interpreted the data within that preconceived framework.

The evolutionary worldview is not science. It is not an observed fact. It involves the use of patently naturalistic, atheistic assumptions about the past to interpret scientific data in the present.

The Psalms vs. Genesis

Another key difference is that those who controverted Galileo relied on a verse from the book of Psalms to argue their case.

Psalm 104:5 reads: "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever."

However, the book of Psalms is admittedly a collection of poetic literature. And the cited verse is not meant to describe the earth as being fixed in space. It is meant to describe the earth as being a generally stable place for its inhabitants to live.

In contrast, we who controvert Darwin point to scientific data, interpreted within the framework of the book of Genesis.

Genesis is very clearly written to be understood as a literal historical narrative. It belongs to a completely different class of literature from the Psalms. 

The genealogical passages in Genesis clearly place the named persons and related events in the context of human history. And the genealogies of Jesus, recorded in Matthew and Luke, further connect the history of Genesis to New Testament history.

So not only do we consider Genesis by itself, but also its relation to the rest of Scripture. This includes the gospel of salvation by grace, through faith in the death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

To interpret the narrative of Genesis as non-literal is to completely disregard the context of the Scriptures as a whole. If Genesis were not a literal historical narrative, then the literal life, death, and resurrection Jesus the Messiah would have been completely unnecessary.

Assumptions

Preamble

Much of what is taught about our early history is based on evolutionary assumptions. And the evolutionary world view itself is based on the assumption that there is no supernatural Creator - an atheist assumption. And the corollary assumption is that the Biblical Flood never happened.

It is simply assumed from the beginning of all secularist inquiry that the universe could not have just been created in mature form by God. It is therefore assumed that all things had to begin simple and evolve to become more complex. It is accordingly assumed that humans began as mere molecules that evolved by steps over vast amounts of time to become "modern humans". And it is assumed that the sedimentary rock-layers of the geological column were laid down slowly by vast amount of time rather than quickly by the vast amounts of water during the Flood that covered the whole earth.

Body

Tools

The idea that humans developed tools over time, starting with the most simple stone tool, up to the more complex, is assumed. This is where the idea of a paleolithic to neolithic era comes from. The artifacts are simply put into order based on the preconceive notion that the simpler ones must be older. But even today, living humans still use a combination of simple and complex tools. And besides that, even some secular scientists are coming to think that some of the paleolithic artifacts that they find are not even human artifacts at all, but geofacts. The thought is that some kind of catastrophe, like a flood, may have shaped these items. Read this article by Michael Oard, M.S. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2001/08/01/controversy-stone-tools). The material at the linked site is written by trained scientists who affirm the Bible.

Language

The idea that the earliest humans could not articulate or write, is also an evolutionary assumption. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were able to speak and understand each other in full ranged articulation from the day they were created. They were created as fully mature adult humans by God. The earliest known written language is cuneiform. Cuneiform is a hieroglyph language belonging to the Akkadian people. This is consistent with the Genesis narrative since Akkad is one of the earliest empires to form after the Flood. And there is no reason to think that there was no written language before the Flood.