Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has made a blog response to Bill Nye. It includes the video above and also a link to the original video by secular evolutionist Bill Nye, "the Science Guy".
The two science "guys" are Dr. David Mention, a Phd in Biology from Brown University and Dr. Georgia Purdom, a Phd in Molecular Genetics at Ohio State University.
Significant points:
1. Belief in a creator (God) and against Naturalistic Darwinian Evolution is not unique to the USA.
2. Dr. Georgia Purdom: A big problem with Evolutionary Theory is "the complete lack of a genetic mechanism that allows organisms to gain genetic information to go from simple to complex over time."
3. The difference between "Observational Science" (Observation, experimentation) vs. Historical Science (the origin of the universe and life and how it came into being).
4. An Evolutionist admitted that most scientists who don't believe in Evolution "can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas". (see the video for exact names and references.) This means that they can really do excellent work in Observational science; which is the opposite of what Bill Nye the Science Guy suggests.
5. This means that belief in creationism and that God created all things as Genesis teaches does not hinder one from doing excellent work in observational science and experimentation.
6. The complexity of the hummingbird and its need for having all its parts to work all at once in order to survive, points away from a slow process of evolution and toward a special creator who said, "Be! and it was so". Similar to the principle of "irreducible complexity" that Michael Behe explained so well in his ground breaking book, Darwin's Black Box. Irreducible complexity is illustrated in a really neat way in the DVD presentation, Unlocking the Mystery of Life.
7. People who believe in God and Creation and the truth of Genesis don't mind teaching our children about the theory of evolution; we just want the freedom to critique it - and the public government schools should allow the other views to challenge the theory of evolution and have open and rational debate about it. Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution should not be taught as dogma in our public schools. Intelligent Design and Creationism (whether Progressive, 6 Day, Day-Age, or even Theistic Evolution (as oxymoron as it is) and the problems with the theory of evolution should also be examined. Let the students and parents decide by honest and open debate, but allow the problems with the philosophical worldview of Evolution and the problems with scientific evidence for it be questioned and examined. The problem with the public government schools is that they don't allow any one to question the theory and point out it's problems. [ * see at bottom for more]
7. People who believe in God and Creation and the truth of Genesis don't mind teaching our children about the theory of evolution; we just want the freedom to critique it - and the public government schools should allow the other views to challenge the theory of evolution and have open and rational debate about it. Darwinian Naturalistic Evolution should not be taught as dogma in our public schools. Intelligent Design and Creationism (whether Progressive, 6 Day, Day-Age, or even Theistic Evolution (as oxymoron as it is) and the problems with the theory of evolution should also be examined. Let the students and parents decide by honest and open debate, but allow the problems with the philosophical worldview of Evolution and the problems with scientific evidence for it be questioned and examined. The problem with the public government schools is that they don't allow any one to question the theory and point out it's problems. [ * see at bottom for more]
Al Mohler reported on this also - Bill Nye, "The Science Guy" says Creationism is not appropriate or good for children. He also mentions news about trends in sex selection abortions.
Bill Nye wants
parents who believe in the one creator God to stop teaching their children that God
is the creator, and Genesis is true.
Dr. Mohler points
out that other famous atheists, like the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard
Dawkins have said the same thing.
One of the reasons
why so many Christians send their children to private Christian schools or they
home-school their children, is because the government schools push the same
agenda that Bill Nye wants. Public
government schools teach a secular humanist and Evolutionary Atheist
worldview. The secular atheists want to steal our
children’s minds. As a result of this dominant worldview in the past 40 years, it permeates our culture and has affected beliefs about ethics, morals, and what is truth, and what is "right and wrong". If Darwinian Atheistic Evolution is true, then there is no judge or judgment day. If there is no judgment day, then there is no right and no wrong; society just decides what right and wrong is. And we are seeing the devastating effects of that philosophy today.
Mohler talks about
how the atheists and scientists like Bill Nye are upset with “American parents”. Apparently, Bill Nye and others like him, think European parents are
more enlightened. Look at what happens
in Europe when they as a culture have left the idea of a Almighty Good and Holy Creator God.
Maybe the recent sentencing of terrorist Anders Behring Breivik to just 21 years for killing 77 people in cold blooded calculated murder and bombing is indication of the lack of moral grounding in what is right and what is wrong; the lack of carrying out the death penalty in justice in Norway against Anders
Breivik comes from this worldview also; rejecting God’s law against murder. (I believe he should be executed: Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:3-4; Ecclesiastes 8:11) See here for more details on the sentencing of Anders Breivik. What is really weird is how the Norwegian population feels good about themselves for being tolerant and merciful in giving him such a light sentence, yet they mostly agree that they don't want him released after 21 years and do agree that he is evil and sick.
Mohler says, “Americans
are recalcitrant in accepting the theory of Evolution” and it frustrates
Evolutionary scientists and educators.
Darwinian Evolution
– that all life forms, including humans, “developed from a process of random genetic
mutation and natural selection” - as Dr. Mohler pointed out, “is also a religious creed”, a worldview, a
philosophy of assumptions that has devastating results in today’s society.
Some of the results are the radical
experimentation with sex selection abortions, and experimentation with human
cloning; and other genetic technologies that make marriage and a sexual
relationship between one man and one women not necessary, at least for the homosexuals. Homosexuals are able to not only adopt
children that neither partner contributed to; but now they are, because of advances in technology and genetic engineering, they also are able to have a child from at least one of the male partners by finding a
surrogate mother, and using advanced technology of implanting his sperm into
that woman. (surrogate mother) Lesbians are able to have
children because one of them gets a sperm bank donation or uses “In Vitro fertilization”.
Homosexual male couples who want to
have children have to get a woman donor who agrees to be the one to have one of
their sperm implanted into her and she carries it to term. As Douglas Wilson pointed out in his lecture
on Design Sexuality – the worldview of these actions come from a belief that
creation is moldable and malleable and we can change nature; a pagan worldview.
So, which philosophy/worldview/religion is really not good for children?
* Addendum:
Children, teenagers, college students should at least be taught that there are intelligent critiques of evolution and allow and investigate other good books and sources such as:
Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Philip Johnson
Not a Chance by R. C. Sproul
Answers in Genesis - Ken Ham, already mentioned above.
Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, linked above.
Books by Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and many others. (too numerous to cite here)
The Genesis Debate (3 views debate each other)
Creation and Change - Douglas Kelly
Added on July 15, 2013:
Why Does the Universe Look so Old? by Al Mohler
The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, by Hank Hanegraaff (does not discuss the age of the earth or "day" of Genesis issues)
The Battle for the Beginning, by John McArthur
John Piper says it has to be either the young earth view or John Sailhamer's view explained in the book,
Genesis Unbound.
Reviewed here by Answers in Genesis.
Other Responses to Bill Nye, "the Science Guy"
C. I. Bolt at Choosing Hats
This conclusion was very good:
"In my view, Cornelius Van Til is right about the quagmire of evolutionary debate when he writes, “It is quite hopeless to fight evolution in the public schools and think that in doing so you have gone to the bottom of the trouble. Back of evolution lie relativism and impersonalism.” (Cornelius Van Til, Foundations of Christian Education, 9) Back of relativism and impersonalism lie atheism. Naturalistic evolution is a symptom of a deep spiritual problem, not the problem itself."
Bill Nye and Pie and in the Sky (by Matthias McMahon; also at "Choosing Hats")
So, which philosophy/worldview/religion is really not good for children?
* Addendum:
Children, teenagers, college students should at least be taught that there are intelligent critiques of evolution and allow and investigate other good books and sources such as:
Darwin on Trial by Philip Johnson
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Philip Johnson
Not a Chance by R. C. Sproul
Answers in Genesis - Ken Ham, already mentioned above.
Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, linked above.
Books by Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and many others. (too numerous to cite here)
The Genesis Debate (3 views debate each other)
Creation and Change - Douglas Kelly
Added on July 15, 2013:
Why Does the Universe Look so Old? by Al Mohler
The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, by Hank Hanegraaff (does not discuss the age of the earth or "day" of Genesis issues)
The Battle for the Beginning, by John McArthur
John Piper says it has to be either the young earth view or John Sailhamer's view explained in the book,
Genesis Unbound.
Reviewed here by Answers in Genesis.
Other Responses to Bill Nye, "the Science Guy"
C. I. Bolt at Choosing Hats
This conclusion was very good:
"In my view, Cornelius Van Til is right about the quagmire of evolutionary debate when he writes, “It is quite hopeless to fight evolution in the public schools and think that in doing so you have gone to the bottom of the trouble. Back of evolution lie relativism and impersonalism.” (Cornelius Van Til, Foundations of Christian Education, 9) Back of relativism and impersonalism lie atheism. Naturalistic evolution is a symptom of a deep spiritual problem, not the problem itself."
Bill Nye and Pie and in the Sky (by Matthias McMahon; also at "Choosing Hats")
Posts
10 comments:
Here is another good reply:
http://issuesetc.org/2012/08/30/3-does-creationism-hurt-children-responding-to-bill-nye-dr-david-menton-83012/
Thanks Brigitte,
Yes, that was good, Dr. David Menton elaborated more in that interview than in the short video above.
Is "Issues, ect." affiliated with the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church?
Yes, more or less3.
They are good; from what I understand, the last of the Lutherans who really believe the Bible.
I'been discussing with some people who've been trying to dissuade me from my Biblical point of view. The things I've been looking into is the influence of Emanuel Swedenborg (I have the compendia of his writings home from the library, at this point), and all the famous people he influenced: Ralph Waldo Emerson, James Williams, Jung, William Blake, Northrop Frye and many literary figures. I think from these people a "metaphorical" understanding of everything has made itself very large. In effect, you can take any of the "stories", i.e. myths, and learn from them, enjoy them on a "spiritual" level, but in the end you make your own meaning and nothing is really true, and what is truth anyhow, and certainly the Bible isn't true in any way except this mythical, literary way. -- Enjoy it. Learn from it. Take is profundity. But you don't have to take it literally.--In fact, those people who take it literally, are committing a kind of idolatry, but sticking to the "letter" rather than the "spirit".
(With Luther, the "letter" is the "law" and the spirit is the "gospel". We are no longer in bondage to the law, but in Christ we are free.) Maybe James can explain it better. I don't have a quote on hand just this minute.
I think we need to explore more what has happened with all this. I am surprised where Swedenborg has been popping up at me, these days. The other day, at my local Costco, there was a man selling his books. He began advertising it to me: if I read his books I will have a deep spiritual and emotional insight. They are about an event in 1956 involving angels.-- Yes, really, indeed. What kind of emotional, spiritual insight will I have?-- In the end I asked him point blank if he was a Swedenborgian. He confessed right there. Yes, he is a Swedenborgian.
I remember Walter Martin, author of the major book on cults - The Kingdom of the Cults when he was alive and had his radio show "the Bible Answer Man Program" - I remember him talking about what a dangerous cult Swedenborgianism is. I googled it and read a little.
wow - what a weird man and cult !
Ken, look at this. In Wikipedia under Justification by Faith, someone wedged in Swedenborg, there. I think I am going to start blogging about this. Having his writings in front of me, I think he was quite confused by and put off by theologians by the teaching of justification by faith and then mixing together Lutheran and Calvinist teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)
You used a good word and phrase to describe that - "wedged in" .
Interesting discussion--bizarre how far evolutionists will go in order to substantiate their philosophy.
Prominent biologist Richard Dawkins made this ridiculous statement during an interview with Bill Moyers:
"Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening."
If you have not observed something while it was happening, then how can it rightly be claimed that the phenomena has been observed, at all? Talk about preposterous!
I've recently given some thought on the creation/evolution debate as of recently:
https://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2018/06/why-i-reject-darwinism-as-science.html
Post a Comment