Bill Nye “The Science Guy” Doesn’t Really Understand Science

Last year I wrote a blog about Bill Nye (from the well-known TV program, Bill Nye the Science Guy) being presented the “Humanist of the Year” award.

Well, on PopularMechanics.com, Bill Nye was interviewed about the teaching of evolution in public schools. I have pasted in some of his statements, with comments from me. It is amazing how the question he was asked concerned molecules-to-man evolution, and then his answer shows how he mixes up historical (or origins) science (e.g., historical geology, paleontology, etc., from which belief in evolution is supposedly derived) with observational (or operational) science (the observational and experimental research that builds our technology and so on). He really doesn’t understand the nature of these two significantly different categories of science:

Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back. And it’s fine if you as an adult want to run around pretending or claiming that you don’t believe in evolution, but if we educate a generation of people who don’t believe in science, that’s a recipe for disaster. We talk about the Internet. That comes from science. Weather forecasting. That comes from science. The main idea in all of biology is evolution. To not teach it to our young people is wrong.

When Bill Nye uses the word evolution here, he is talking about the belief in molecules-to-man change (e.g., reptiles changing into birds, or ape-like creatures changing into man). Such a view relates to historical science and involves beliefs about the past that can’t be observed—times when no human witness was there. But putting “evolution” and technology like the Internet together is ridiculous. The Internet involves observational (operational) science—lab research in the field of physics, the use of computers and programming done by intelligent human beings, etc.

Also, weather forecasting involves operational science—observing the actual circumstances, understanding low and high pressure, using the laws of nature etc—to make predictions (although such forecasting only works well over a few days in most instances). And to say (as most evolutionists falsely claim) that the main idea in all of biology is evolution is also ridiculous. Students would be much further ahead if they were just taught real biology (such as the nature of cells, reproduction, mutations, and natural selection—all of which creationists accept as sound science) without the baggage of the false view of origins that detracts from this discipline.

. . . Well the longest journey starts with just a single step. Science education: We should support it. Especially elementary school science. Nearly every rocket scientist got interested in it before they were 10. Everybody who’s a physician, who makes vaccines, who wants to find the cure for cancer. Everybody who wants to do any medical good for humankind got the passion for that before he or she was 10. So we want to excite a new generation of kids—every generation—about the passion, beauty and joy—the PB&J—of science. These anti-evolution people are frustrating in two ways. The first way is, almost certainly they know better. Those people really do believe in flu shots. They really do understand that when you find fossil bones of ancient dinosaurs, you are looking at deep time, not just 5000 years. And secondly, and much more importantly, having raised a generation of kids who don't understand science is bad for everyone. And with the United States having a leadership role in science and technology, having a generation of kids not believing in science is bad for the world.

Once again, Nye mixes historical science with operational science, either out of ignorance or because he deliberately deceives to indoctrinate people. Flu shots, vaccines, and the cure for cancer all involve operational science as scientists study viruses, cells, etc. and design experiments and tests to accumulate knowledge about the present world.

The bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs (implied when one is discussing vaccines and flu shots) has nothing to do with evolution—nothing! We have articles on our website that deal specifically with this topic of antibiotic resistance. After mentioning these topics, he then mentions fossil bones and states “you are looking at deep time, not just 5000 years.” A scientist does not “look at deep time.” A scientist examines dinosaur bones and interprets them in relation to the past (historical science), based on non-scientific worldview assumptions about the past.

One does not dig up fossils with labels on them telling us how old they are!!

Bill Nye then goes on and states, “having a generation of kids not believing in science is bad for the world.” However, because of what he has previously stated, he is really saying that “believing in science” and believing in “evolution” are the same! This is the way unsuspecting kids are brainwashed to believe the lie of evolution in the public school education system, science museums, and science programs on TV.

Oh the teachers get pulled every which way. People get on school boards just with this agenda of not teaching evolution. The school board comes running in and beats them over the head. But denying the facts does not make them not true. And in science we’re always looking for the truth, it’s what we do. Does this work? Does this solve the problem? Can you do the same experiment and get the same results?

He is highly misrepresenting the school board battles I am familiar with. None of them have insisted that the schools should be “not teaching evolution.” There have been situations where such boards have wanted the scientific objections to evolution to be examined by students, or for other views of origins including creation or intelligent design to be taught as well. But no school board that we are aware of has asked for evolution to be removed from the curriculum.

Bill Nye was asked: “Should teachers be mandated to teach evolution as fact?” His response was as follows:

What other fundamental theory in all of biology is there? Intelligent design, as the judge in Dover, Penn., said, is “breathtaking inanity.” It was so stupid it took his breath away. I agree with him. It’s great to teach in history class, though. People believed the earth was the center of the universe. People believed the earth was flat. It was reasonable at the time, but we don’t learn about those ideas in science class.

There he goes, doing what some others have done over the years—trying to equate those who believe in creation with those who supposedly believe in a flat earth. This is just nonsense, and is typical of those who try to mock creationists by making such false associations.

So to believe in design is “stupid?” By the way, if the universe evolved by natural processes, then how can we accept the laws of logic? And if Bill Nye’s processes of logic evolved by natural processes, how can he be sure that his or any other evolutionist’s thoughts about the past correspond to reality? Maybe the chemicals and electrical charges in his brain are producing these thoughts for some unknown but purposeless, mindless evolutionary reason.

Gravity is a theory. People have landed spacecraft on the moon within a few feet of accuracy because we understand gravity so well. People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick. Farmers raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every generation. That’s all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it’s a theory that you can test. We’ve tested evolution in many ways. You can’t present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact.

Once again, Bill Nye mixes operational science (hybridization regarding crops, flu vaccines, landing on the moon, etc.) with historical science (the belief in evolution). And yes, Bill, we can experiment with gravity and measure the forces involved. That’s why scientists could design spacecraft to land on the moon—they knew what forces to account for. To equate this with the belief in evolution (molecules to man) is deceptive thinking and wrong.

It’s so sad that the man called the “science guy” on television doesn’t understand the true nature of science—the difference between historical science and operational science, and the limits of operational science in regard to dealing with the topic of origins.

You can read the entire interview at this link.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken