UNANSWERED QUESTION: Bill Nye the Science Shill Guy

The New England Patriots head coach, Bill Belichick, is now officially busted in the “Deflate-Gate” scandal. Bill Nye, commonly referred to as “the science guy” has shown through ironclad, empirical data that the weather at the AFC championship game could not have affected the air pressure in the footballs as Belichick claimed. Therefore, watch for severe penalties to be meted out against the Patriots after this Sunday’s Super Bowl courtesy of the science guy.

Of course, Nye could not resist during his rant against the Patriots to admonish us all for not paying attention to a real problem – climate change. And as a science “expert”, lay people like us are not to question Nye about anything he says because well, he’s smart. And like climate change we shouldn’t challenge what Nye proclaims about the origin of life and evolution either.

Nye makes this clear in his new book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. The motivation for writing this book came from his debate entitled “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?” with Answers In Genesis founder, Ken Ham. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that I have not read Nye’s new treatise. However, I did watch the debate and it’s clear that Nye’s position on the origin of life is the common neo-Darwinian view that forms the foundation for secular life today.

Neither Nye nor Ham made a coherent case for their position in the debate. As much as I respect my Christian brother, Ham’s insistence on a six thousand year old earth with its creation in six twenty-four hour days is hurting our efforts to make Christianity a viable alternative for thinking people.

The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a four and a half billion year old earth and this is not in conflict with the Bible. The most reasonable interpretation of the underlying Hebrew in the Book of Genesis supports the creation days being eras and not twenty-four hour days. However, with respect to the universe and life being created by a vast intelligence, I am in total agreement with Ham.

Nye on the other hand ignores the overwhelming data pointing to intelligence behind the material universe and instead promotes the life by chance position, i.e., Darwinism. Actually it’s neo-Darwinism that says the vast array of life on this planet is due to random mutations to DNA within cells producing changes in the organism that either improve survivability or decrease survivability.

Darwin apologists today ignore the doubts that Darwin himself had about his own theory. Darwin was very concerned that the fossil record did not support his naturalistic mechanism. If natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for all life as we know it, there should then be a wealth of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Darwin wrote that a severe lack of such intermediate steps between species would essentially negate his theory, but he was sure the fossil record would be filled in as time went on. Well, it hasn’t. One hundred and fifty years later, the fossil record is as sparse in transitional forms as it was when Darwin first published his theory.

There is a bigger problem for Darwinists than the fossil record though. We now understand that all life is based on vast amounts of very sophisticated information. The DNA code is essentially a computer program but far, far more advanced than any program generated by man according to none other than Bill Gates.

We are also finding now that there is far more information in biological systems than just that contained in DNA. Scientists now recognize that something called epigenetic information is contained in certain cell structures and may be more elegant and sophisticated than DNA. While DNA contains the information the cell needs to make the proteins it must have to function, the epigenetic information is what determines how cells join to become tissues and in turn organs and on to organisms.

And to manage this entire process, scientists now recognize that there are mechanisms they call developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRN’s). These networks control which genes turn on and when they turn off.

You simply cannot get new life forms by changing one bit of DNA information in the nucleus of a cell. You have to have a coordinated set of changes in DNA, the epigenetic information and the dGRN’s. The odds on this coordination happening in a positive way to produce a more sophisticated life form are so astronomical as to be impossible.

This kind of sophistication has only one cause — a mind. Natural processes do not produce information. Information only comes from a mind and with the complexity and sophistication we see in biological systems, the mind behind it is astoundingly intelligent.

I’d like to ask Bill Nye how the first life got started. Where did the information come from to run the first cell?

Darwinists are kind of like an old Steve Martin joke. Martin would proclaim that he had a sure fire way to make two million dollars. “First”, he would say, “get a million dollars!” Darwinists are like this. They like to talk about how evolution works on life that is already here. They never want to talk about how the first life got started using simply naturalistic processes. I guess they can always fall back to Richard Dawkins’ position – aliens!

Image: http://theseamonster.net/2011/06/wow-did-you-see-them-they-must-be-scientists/

image

John Tutten

About the author, John Tutten: John Tutten holds degrees in both engineering and business management. He is veteran of thirty-three years in the high technology business world where he spent time in development engineering and technology management predominantly in the area of custom semiconductor circuits. He recently retired to the mountains of north Georgia where he devotes his time to the study of Christian Apologetics and writing in defense of the Christian worldview. View all articles by John Tutten

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.