Turns Out, Bill Nye Isn’t Even a Good Scientist

Bill Nye is not only biased, but he shows he is a true ideologue rather than a scientist

Bill Nye, Bridgewater State College, 2007
Image derived from photo by Hs4g, used under CCA-SA license

18 For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, 19 since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.

28 And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong.

~ Ro 1:18-20, 28 (HCSB)

Well, I never thought I’d be writing about Ken Ham vs Bill Nye so soon.  As you might recall, I gave them both a rather less than stellar rating after their debate.  In spite of Ken Ham’s weaknesses in his argument, Bill Nye, IMO, missed some rather golden opportunities in his debate against Ham.  Specifically, since it has to do with the current subject, I wrote:

Bill Nye had a couple of weaknesses in his argument.  My biggest disappointment is a prevalent bias in the atheist community that I’ve noticed from time to time, and it frankly is a bias that I have trouble understanding.  It is the notion that just because we can confidently answer, “God did it,” that somehow that means there is no curiosity, no desire to seek out knowledge or even any acknowledgement that scientific exploration has been around a lot longer than even atheism itself.  In fact, science pretty much began as an endeavor to understand how God put things together in order to understand Him better in how He works.  Ken Ham did not even address this attitude until very late in the show, however.

Nye also seemed hung up on the notion that somehow being a young earth creationist made them somehow uncritical thinkers who would not be seekers of new knowledge and that would somehow kill American innovation and technology.  Yet, Ham gave him several examples of real live scientists who do publish papers, forward research and even one who invented the MRI.  Ham also stressed that belief in a Creator Who made the physical laws is a plus, for if everything came out of chaos and chance, you cannot really depend upon those same laws tomorrow and the next day thereafter.

Well, today I learned from WCPO in Cincinnati that “Funding after evolution debate spurs Noah’s Ark project“:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The founder of a Bible-themed museum who recently debated evolution with TV’s “Science Guy” Bill Nye says fundraising after the widely watched event helped to revive stalled plans to build a 510-foot replica of Noah’s Ark.

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham said a municipal bond offering has raised enough money to begin construction on the wooden ark, estimated to cost about $73 million. Groundbreaking is planned for May and the ark is expected to be finished by the summer of 2016.

You may recall earlier reconstruction efforts by Dutch builder Johan Huibers, including a full-sized replica of “Noah’s Ark Now Open” as of 2012.

You would think a “scientist” would be thrilled with such activity!  After all, what is science?

The word science comes from the Latin “scientia,” meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

~ Science Made Simple, “The definition of science — What is science?” (emphasis mine)

So, let’s walk this through.  Ken Ham has already studied the description of the ark, and he wants to put that study into practice.  He then wants to experiment by building an ark and observe what happens.  Sounds somewhat scientific, don’t you think?  After all, what do scientists do?  They put together theories, and then they make models, experiments and construct items to test out various portions of them and observe the results.

So, what true scientist wouldn’t be thrilled at such a thing that strikes right at the heart of what science is all about?  More to the point, who could oppose such a thing and still call themselves a “scientist”?

Well, apparently, Bill Nye can.  That is, he can call himself a scientist, but his rabid ideology now becomes bitterly obvious:

Reached by phone Thursday, Nye said he was disappointed the project would go forward and said he hoped it “goes out of business.”

“If he builds that ark, it’s my strong opinion, it’s bad for the commonwealth of Kentucky and bad for scientists based in Kentucky and bad for the U.S.,” Nye said. “And I’m not joking, bad for the world.”


So, since when is knowledge bad for the world, at least according to science?

The fact is that it is an emotional, and not a logical or even scientific, response in which so-called “scientists” fear that someone might prove their disbelief in God wrong, or at least put a dent in that shield.  It is childish (reprobate?) to insist that one is seeking the truth in a naturalistic and objective manner but then act so subjectively towards something that suggests that mankind is not the god he seeks to be.

Who knows if Ham will even succeed?  After all, he insists that baby dinosaurs were on the ark (because he locks himself into a young earth creation), so he might well fail to make the point because of that or many other things.  Ham is even attempting to use wooden pegs and the like instead of modern nails, so the entire thing might just crash down on his head for all we know.  Apparently, even the chance that he might succeed strikes fear into the heart of the evolutionist because they might be found out for being the frauds that they are (and often have perpetrated in trying to “prove” their ideas).

Of course, nothing Ham is doing would prove the seaworthiness of such a vessel, but at least it might prove that the dimensions were large enough for all of the animal kinds and that it could at least hold together on land.  Even if he fails, the question is whether or not the failing is in his (sometimes too narrow) interpretation of the Bible narrative.

It should be noted that Huibers ark is seaworthy, but its main purpose is tourism, so it had to conform to modern fire codes and such.  He also used some rather modern materials, and not just gopher wood, since scholars cannot even agree on what that is or was.  As Mrs Huibers told people worried about a flood “predicted” by the Mayan calendar, “This is not a rescue boat.  It’s a museum.”

One can reasonably argue that both builders are working under limitations that did not exist when Noah built the original.  However, scientists themselves are limited in the scope of their research due to all sorts of variables, so this really isn’t as far removed as it might first appear.

It’s not like any of us were around to observe the Big Bang, after all.  Even that, at best, is a theory backed up by limited research.  Not all “science” has lent itself well to the scientific method because such experiments on many scales are impossible to perform.

You do not promote scientific thought and inquiry by shutting people down.  Skeptics like to point to the Catholic Church for shutting down heliocentrism in the cases of Copernicus and Galileo.  However, who are the modern day obstructionists to scientific thought?


Comments are closed.