Bill Nye Thinks US Science Threatened By Creation Views


NYE-550x376Bill Nye, the man that many have named “The Science Guy” has launched efforts condemning Christian groups that cast doubt on the religion of evolution and lawmakers who want schools to teach Creation science in the classroom.

While Biblical Christians view the account in Genesis as literal history in which God created all things in the space of six days, men like Nye attempt to answer origins with “science.” The problem they face is that they are just as much engaged in faith-based conclusions as Christians. The only problem is they have fallen for the fallacy of induction as pertains to origins which cannot be proved as true. This is why evolution is continued to be termed a theory.


Nye told the Associated Press,

“The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old. It’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.”

“If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate.”

“I can see where one gets so caught up in this (debate) that you say something that will galvanize people in a bad way, that will make them hate you forever,” he said. “But I emphasize that I’m not questioning someone’s religion _ much of that is how you were brought up.”

Well Nye is entitled to his opinion. He cannot prove the age of the earth. For him to do so would mean that he knows exactly how things progressed through all of history and at the same rate. In fact, he would have to have been around in the beginning and sorry Mr. Nye, you are about 6,000 years too late.

Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics group, established the Creation Museum in Kentucky and seeks to give an answer of the truth of the Bible in regards to Creation and origins countered Nye’s claims stating, “children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past.”

While Nye mocked Christians who believe in Creation saying, “What I find troubling, when you listen to these people … once in a while I get the impression that they’re not kidding,” Answers in Genesis co-founder Ken Ham refuted Nye’s claims by saying “We say the only dating method that is absolute is the Word of God. Time is the crucial factor for Bill Nye. Without the time of millions of years, you can’t postulate evolution change.”

Watch Ken Ham’s response to Bill Nye below:





  • Viet Nam Vet 67-68

    Show me your proof Bill, you are just another paronoid Athiest who is afraid of God. I won’t pray for you or Abomination.

  • VocalYokel

    I will confess that I liked his ‘Bill Nye – The Science Guy’ TV show…but if he wants to believe his ancestors oozed their way out of the primordial muck and the beautiful varieties of life that inhabit our planet are the result of genetic sleight-of-hand and magical mutations, I’m afraid he’s going to get an ‘F’ on the final.

    • Chuck

      Bill earns an A in my science class and you get the F.
      You can take a very simplistic view of this universe around us. However on closer examination it is not as simple as we would like with billion of galaxies each composed of billions of stars that may be orbited by planets. The purpose of science is to provide a systematic approach to the study of any natural topic and attempts to organize that study into a single compressive body of facts (observations both personal and with the aid of tools and equipment), laws (generalizations of patterns and trends in those observations) and theories (hypotheses to explain why those observations and laws occur). Every theory needs to be as simple as possible to explain the observations and laws but it must also provide suggestions for new experiments that have not been done. The theory must predict the results for these new experiments. When these further experiments are preformed, the theory is strengthen by the new observations that agree with the predictions. If the observations do not agree with the theory’s predictions, the theory is disproved and must be replaced by modifying the theory or replacing it. Any theory that is not testable by experiment is of no scientific value. No theory should be any more complicated than necessary. Any extra assumptions should be shaved off. This is known as Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor, law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It requires one to select from among competing hypotheses (theories) that which makes the fewest and simplest assumptions. Intelligent Design (ID) requires a supreme being that most claim to be omnipotent (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere present) and eternal (no beginning and no end). That is simple to say but would be very difficult to prove– would you consider a 4 or 5 or 6 dimensional God. This assumption (a supreme being that is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal) fails the simplest assumptions test. We should follow the example that history has provided through the trial of Galileo [1564 (J) - 1642(G)]. The Catholic Church found Galileo guilty of heresy and put him under house arrest and his writings on the list of condemned books but new knowledge has proved Galileo right. However, the Church is slow to make corrections. On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei.

      Maybe the best solution is that theologians continue to have faith in their God and help us to learn how to peacefully live together and scientists continue to decode the structure of the Universe. Theologians won’t try to interpret the Universe and scientists will not look for God. The work of scientists will not be complete until all of the questions of nature are answered. With all of the conflicts in the world today, people of faith have much to do.

  • RICHARD BENSEN

    considering that one day was 1000 years,mmmm no wonder ”The Science Guy”seems confused…..Just understand the Bible….just saying…or am I confused…Also where does it say that this earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old…I’m sure it’s much older than that…It’s funny how many people will stop believing in GOD because of presumed science of facts.

  • Chuck

    You can take a very simplistic view of this universe around us. However on closer examination it is not as simple as we would like with billion of galaxies each composed of billions of stars that may be orbited by planets. The purpose of science is to provide a systematic approach to the study of any natural topic and attempts to organize that study into a single compressive body of facts (observations both personal and with the aid of tools and equipment), laws (generalizations of patterns and trends in those observations) and theories (hypotheses to explain why those observations and laws occur). Every theory needs to be as simple as possible to explain the observations and laws but it must also provide suggestions for new experiments that have not been done. The theory must predict the results for these new experiments. When these further experiments are preformed, the theory is strengthen by the new observations that agree with the predictions. If the observations do not agree with the theory’s predictions, the theory is disproved and must be replaced by modifying the theory or replacing it. Any theory that is not testable by experiment is of no scientific value. No theory should be any more complicated than necessary. Any extra assumptions should be shaved off. This is known as Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor, law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It requires one to select from among competing hypotheses (theories) that which makes the fewest and simplest assumptions. Intelligent Design (ID) requires a supreme being that most claim to be omnipotent (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere present) and eternal (no beginning and no end). That is simple to say but would be very difficult to prove. This assumption (a supreme being that is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal) fails the simplest assumptions test. We should follow the example that history has provided through the trial of Galileo [1564 (J) - 1642(G)]. The Catholic Church found Galileo guilty of heresy and put him under house arrest and his writings on the list of condemned books but new knowledge has proved Galileo right. However, the Church is slow to make corrections. On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei.

    Maybe the best solution is that theologians continue to have faith in their God and help us to learn how to peacefully live together and scientists continue to decode the structure of the Universe. Theologians won’t try to interpret the Universe and scientists will not look for God. The work of scientists will not be complete until all of the questions of nature are answered. With all of the conflicts in the world today, people of faith have much to do.

  • NotRightNotLeft

    LMFAO @ Ken Ham!!! What a moron.

  • Randy G

    Has anyone ever thought that GOD may be using evolution( or Darwinism) to bring people forward???

    • http://FrontPorchPolitics.com/ Tim Brown

      Not when He said otherwise about how He created things, no.

    • Randy G

      Did He say, or did someone else write it? If so, did God make him write it?

  • 44rd11

    What a WASTE of students time to teach either. BUT if they are going to teach evolution – they need to make sure the students understand that it is a THEORY and NOT a proven fact. There is no proof of evolution in anything – there is a bit reason to accept adaptation – but humans have been on this planet for thousands of years – not just the 4 to 6,000 period of time given in the bible. Few ever consider that they bible covers an area of the earth that is barely the size of the continental U.S.; from Egypt, Nubia, perhaps Ethiopia, Arabian states, Persia (Iran), Babylon (Iraq), Greece, Rome. There is NO mention of China – which was civilized, India, Australia, the America’s – which were ALL populated.

    How about let’s concentrate on reading, writing, math,and the REAL history of the United States, why there was a Declaration of Independence, a revolution, then a Constitution that CREATED the United States of America (now 50 states). And let’s skip the socialism and social engineering.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Mankey/100000614501849 Chris Mankey

      “BUT if they are going to teach evolution – they need to make sure the students understand that it is a THEORY and NOT a proven fact.”

      Wow, Here the definition of theory in science , One more time ……
      a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

      So yeah, it’s a fact. As much as anything can be.

    • imperium1

      Learn the role theories play in science genius. Theories incorporate facts and are explanative of them. That’s what science does. It observes phenomena [i.e. facts] and them seeks to explain them [i.e. theories].

  • Patriot

    I will believe in God until someone tells me who “banged” as in the big bang theory.
    I do not see where a belief in God has stopped science from creating things they wish to create. Not one scientist can prove there is not God and no one can prove there is God.
    So until there is such proof………I think both had better continue to work side by side.
    Why do they try so desperately to get rid of something they don’t believe exists. I think we still have free will to believe what we want to of all this stuff. ……. and be left alone if we believe and not ridiculed if we don’t. I think both theories should be covered in school and people should be allowed to make up their own minds as to what they believe.

    • 44rd11

      Why should either be taught – how does it affect their ability to go through life, get a job, make a living, have a family, enjoy life, be a responsible citizen? Better that they should learn to speak, read, write, math, real science like biology and chemistry, U.S. history – the reason for the revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution that created this Republic (and what that is) of the United States of America. It simply doesn’t matter how we got here in our lives or in the education of our children. Religion should only be taught in the context of WORLD history – the religions of different peoples – without slander towards any religion – this is a country where FREEDOM of Religion – not from it – but every religion – and no religion should take ANY precedence in our education system over another.

    • Chuck

      You say that students should learn real science like biology and chemistry. More fundamental than these is physics and should be included. My question to you is what should be included in those studies – only the facts, the equations and the laws ? Or should that study include the underlying theories that explain why ? Look at my (Chuck) comments that explain the purpose of science.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Hart/1718962778 John Hart

    Evolution has many meanings, science isn’t one of them. Before Darwin, evolution meant the unfolding of God’s plan. Those who don’t believe things are caused can’t practice science. Science is the study of what causes things. Life is caused by molecules which are relationships of atoms which are relationships of particles which are built from smaller quanta and the behavior of everything is determined by hundreds of fundamental constants that were established by??? This is the point where mindless atheistic theories of evolution turn to gibberish. People without a concept of God are the poorest in the World.

    • NotRightNotLeft

      ” People without a concept of God are the poorest in the World.”

      Haha, tell that to Bill Gates. Also, I may not be the wealthiest man in town, but my life is rich indeed. I have no god. it’s OK, though, no one else does either. They just think they do.

    • Chuck

      The purpose of science is to provide a systematic approach to the study of any natural topic and attempts to organize that study into a single compressive body of facts (observations both personal and with the aid of tools and equipment), laws (generalizations of patterns and trends in those observations) and theories (hypotheses to explain why those observations and laws occur). Every theory needs to be as simple as possible to explain the observations and laws but it must also provide suggestions for new experiments that have not been done. The theory must predict the results for these new experiments. When these further experiments are preformed, the theory is strengthen by the new observations that agree with the predictions. If the observations do not agree with the theory’s predictions, the theory is disproved and must be replaced by modifying the theory or replacing it. Any theory that is not testable by experiment is of no scientific value.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Mankey/100000614501849 Chris Mankey

      “Evolution has many meanings, science isn’t one of them”

      I’m afraid the scientific definition of evolution is the only one that has evidence to back it up.

  • ZagoZana

    Those creationist who believe the Earth is only 6,000 yrs. old are limiting
    G-d to the smallness of their imagination.

    G-d did not limit them. Why do they limit G-d?
    Those who use the scientific process know that they must account
    for all evidences unearthed and can not go willy nilly picking through
    it and extracting only those things that support their agenda.
    The Universe is as old as it appears.
    “G-d gave us the power and motivation to constantly seek to search Him out.
    “G-d is not trying to fool the scientist.”
    “Consciousness created matter! Matter can not create consciousness!…”
    One of His greatest creations is our sense of humor. What else could
    explain the gigglings of little children.
    We are supposed to find Him and he is unfailingly helping us discover Him.

  • Stan

    If science doesnt believe in creation, how can it bother them? Thats why God gave us choice. Like to see what happens when they pick on Islam, any bets they wont?

    • Chuck

      The problem with creation is that is BAD Science. Science is a methodology or process not just a collection of observations, laws and theories.

      Also be careful of that slippery slope if you want to base your legal system on the Bible. As long as you are in the majority, that could continue. However, if you become a minority to Muslims that use the Qur’an. The Qur’an could easily replace the Bible. Therefore it seems better to base our legal system on the traditions of civil law and criminal law.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/ORSV2H5JB5MR4WMJHFMVTTHP3Y E. K

    If Bill Nye and the other sponsors of the ‘theory’ believe in it and contend that it is the truth, then why are they, why do they, when will they stop getting so upset and in a frenzy concerning the ‘theories’ of creation. If they are really right, correct, absolutely the authorities, then why are they always upset. If you are correct – then there is no need to keep fighting the ‘other side’. It is so sad. Apparently they are not thoroughly convinced in their minds that their ‘theory’ is really right,correct and the absoilute as to how the world/mankind came into being.

  • PWR

    I find it so funny that these scientist would have us believe that here, right beisde us there may very well be many different universe’s, in each of the universe’s they have their own laws or physics so to speak, I.E. 1 + 2 = 4 in some of these places! Yet, they very idea of a superior being actually being responsible for all that we know and see is to “Far fetched” for them to grasp! They would have me belive that life came from some “Primordial soup” and from this first ameba, all that we know of life came? Oh and by the way, they can’t create this “Primordial Soup” in a labratory, yet it just happened! It’s like the “Big Bang Theory” well, I’m just a country boy, but in order for somthing to blow up, you got to have something that’s explosive! In order for our universe to be expanding, there must be space for it to expand into! I think the truth lies where we will never know (I’m speaking in a form of factual proof knowing, as I believe in God.) but the scientist of today know just enough to to make them act stupid when it comes to the “Big Picture” of our universe and creator! I believe that all things evolve, we are evolving as many humans are loosing their wisdom teeth. BUT I do not believe that humans evolved from apes, the fact that apes still exist in so many forms to me tells me this is nonsense. I tell my wife that I believe all that we are, our entire universe, sits in a jar on God’s desk! I find that more likely than the Big Bang!!

    • Chuck

      NO 1 + 2 can not equal 4, but 1 + 10 = 11 = 3
      1 base 2 and 10 base 2 = 11 base 2 = 3 base 10.
      With this logic, we may be just the thoughts of a novelist and are not real at all.

  • MarcJ

    To the editor: Religious people believe that God created life on earth; many scientists are convinced that life is a product of chance mixing of molecules favorable to life.

    Let us first dispose of the question of evolution of species. We all know from direct experience that man can and did produce new variations of various species: after all, we have invented new vegetables and fruits, new grains, new kinds of dogs, cats, and horses, etc. Nature has produced new variants and even new species over the millennia; we know that millions of various species have disappeared over the history of the Earth, and that new species have shown up regularly and spontaneously over time.

    However, the Darwinist explanation of this evolution is based on the following definition: “This particular sub-specie survived since it was better equipped, more advanced”, or alternatively “This particular sub-specie was better equipped or more advanced since it survived”. Aristotle many centuries ago warned us against the dangers of circular reasoning, of which this Darwinist explanation is a prime example.

    As for the problem of the original birth of the first living cell, Darwinism is somewhat vague. Presumably, in that primordial organic soup a series of accidental mixing of various molecules resulted in the first living cell, which then kept on mixing to produce a variety of living cells, and so on until we got the first plants and animals by further mixing and interactions.

    We now know that the basic characteristic of all life is a DNA helix – a complex structure of many thousands of various molecules arranged in a particular order. A French scientist (whose name escapes me for the moment) calculated the chances of such a molecule being produced by accident. He simplified the problem by assuming a tremendously simple living cell that consisted of only two types of molecules (say, white and black), arranged in the simplest possible arrangement of one white-one black-one white- one black, and so on for a total of 1,000 white molecules and 1,000 black ones, arranged in a simple straight line. He further simplified the entire known universe of some 10 to the power of 80 molecules, to consist of one half white and one half black, all placed in a single blob of the so-called organic soup to be maintained at a life-convenient moderate temperature, and mixing. He then let that organic soup mix over an indefinite length of time until such first living cell was produced by chance, by allowing billions and billions of attempts per second. He calculated the minimum length of time necessary for a spontaneous birth of one such simplified molecule. That minimum time was about 16 billion years – which is substantially longer than the period of time elapsed since the original cosmic explosion that gave rise to the present cosmos – which is about 12 billion years. His scientific conclusion was that a chance birth of such a tremendously simplified first living cell was mathematically and absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

    • Chuck

      Our sun is estimated to be an average star about 4.5 billion years old. Because of its composition and the composition of the planets, it must be at least a 2nd generation star from the Big Bang. This estimate would make the universe about 22 billion years old. Our limit of measuring time is on the order of 10^40 seconds or 3×10^33 years or 3×10^24 billions of years. This is 3 yottillion billion years. Another way of saying this is 3 septillion billion years or 3 million billion billion billion years. Heaven only knows what could happen during that time !!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Mankey/100000614501849 Chris Mankey

      “Aristotle many centuries ago warned us against the dangers of circular reasoning, of which this Darwinist explanation is a prime example.”

      Bullshit, survival of the fitter is not tautological. Since the definition of fitness changes with environmental conditions.

      “As for the problem of the original birth of the first living cell, Darwinism is somewhat vague. Presumably, in that primordial organic soup a series of accidental mixing of various molecules resulted in the first living cell, which then kept on mixing to produce a variety of living cells, and so on until we got the first plants and animals by further mixing and interactions.”

      Darwinian evolution isn’t meant to be abiogensis. It only explains the evolution of already living things. And chemical reactions aren’t random.

      “He then let that organic soup mix over an indefinite length of time until such first living cell was produced by chance,”

      The first cell wasn’t produced by chance. and cells were probably quite a bit along the process of abiogenesis. You seem to be in love with the “Random chance” fallacy.

    • MarcJ

      Nice reasoning – based on the “bullshit” basis.

    • imperium1

      Says the creationist bullshitter. :-)

  • deeme

    God and God alone controls this little tiny planet..and why he still puts up with U.S. must mean there are plenty of good men left..I could post stories all day long that counter the b.s. but what should be your guide, is the many people who have gotten rich off the hoax.It.Is the biggest slush fund that ever was, and the people telling you to drive cars and use light bulbs that are dangerous are not following that at all with their four homes..and private jets..

    http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/07/28/nasa-exposed-global-warming-hoax/

    • 44rd11

      God is NOT controlling anything. So seldom, even in your bible, has he ever interfered with the world and how it works. He only ever saved ONE nation from certain destruction – Nineveh – and there is NO explanation as to why he did that. Yes, what you often see is how he destroys places for their corrupt life – Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind – or the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. but controlling – no – IF God created all this, it must be pretty much like having an ant farm – as He watches the machinations of men – as we squabble like little children and work so diligently at killing each other off, the greed, the lust for power, the hedonistic self centered group of sheep that follow blindly towards their own destruction – time after time after time.

  • Sutekh

    Bill Nye may be right. The sect or cult of Homocreationism teaches that certain people are “gay because God made them that way.”
    Despite the overwhelming lack of evidence for a “gay gene,” no scientist has undertaken to challenge this intrusion of religion into science.
    If you want to save science, guys, you have to keep EVERY religion out, not just Christianity. Geocalorianism (“Global Warming” comes to mind.)

    • imperium1

      Stop making up words.

  • Michael G.

    Bill Nye is threatened by the reality of Creation.

    • Chuck

      Now I know why the United States is ranked 17th in science worldwide !!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Mankey/100000614501849 Chris Mankey

      Creationists. Threatened by the reality of physics, astronomy, biology, geology, archaeology anthropology, Egyptology and chemistry.

  • Terry

    Idiot!

  • fliteking

    Old story, nothing has change, Bill is still a DB .