Blog

I would never have imagined that this day would come. From 3rd through 5th grade I attended Bigelow Hill Intermediate School in Findlay, Ohio. My teachers were innovative when it came to teaching us science, so they experimented by showing us episodes of a popular new show called Bill Nye the Science Guy. I loved Bill Nye and enjoyed his show. He was smart, he was fun, and he spoke about things in which I would not typically be interested. He made it all come alive. Because my nickname is Bill, some of my classmates started calling me Bill Nye the Science Guy. I took it as a compliment. Today, I am insulted by Mr. Nye.

In case you have not heard, Mr. Nye has recently made the statement that it is okay for parents to deny evolution, but not to teach their anti-evolution beliefs to their children. He said that “We need them.” He clarified by saying we need scientifically literate tax payers and voters in future generations.

This whole spiel started with Mr. Nye stating that he believes that people rejecting the theory of evolution hold everyone else back. On what basis does he make such a claim? Do creationists prevent evolutionists from further exploration into the theory of evolution? Does the rejection of the theory of evolution prevent vital technologies from being developed? For the answer to that question, let me ask another question: Has the acceptance of the theory of evolution in mainstream science prevented the advance of creationism? The answer is obvious in both cases: No.

If anything, I would say that creationism has driven proponents of the theory of evolution to new heights and that proponents of evolution have driven creationists to new heights. As a diehard creationist, I do wish that the theory of evolution would go the way of natural selection, but let’s be honest with ourselves for a moment; if it were not for the theory of evolution, the modern creation movement would not exist today. In order to make that claim, we must also acknowledge that without the older forms of creationism, the theory of evolution would never have been invented. In a very capitalistic sense, the two models have strengthened one another and to suggest that one must be suppressed in order to exalt the other would have devastating consequences.

Mr. Nye’s statements are a threat to our freedom as Americans. What Mr. Nye intends to imply is that if you teach your children young earth creationism, you are engaging in a form of child abuse! If you don’t believe me, pick up a copy of Richard Dawkins The God Delusion and merely look at the table of contents. He has an entire section that is titled, “Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion.” The unfortunate part for atheists is that they know that a man like Richard Dawkins could never be persuasive enough to convince a soft-hearted person that teaching children religion is child abuse. Enter Bill Nye the Science Guy. I would guess that hundreds of thousands if not millions of children, many of which are now adults around my age, have fond childhood memories of him. Mr. Nye is not Richard Dawkins. He has a heart. So the ploy is that you don’t have to be a heartless Richard Dawkins to believe that such teachings are child abuse. You can be reasonable and caring and arrive at the same conclusion. Under such a guise, if accepted, the meaning of child abuse could be expanded to the extent that you may only teach your children your values as long as they meet the standards of so-called experts. Anything teaching violating this standard would be considered child abuse. Does this sound reasonable?

I am not claiming that Bill Nye is advocating for such action, he seems to be pleading his case, but there are people who want to impose such measures. Suppressive action of this sort is always the result of political regimes grasping for power. All one has to do is observe China or North Korea. One’s freedom of speech in those countries is very limited and the consequences for expressing politically unpopular ideas are severe. I fear that Mr. Nye’s remarks may actually be more politically charged than scientific.

The timing of his statement could not be more ideal. We are two months away from the next Presidential election and supporters of one side are trying to make the other side appear as though they are a bunch of fanatical, ignorant, religious, nut-jobs. Why do I say this? Bill Nye specifically mentioned “tax payers” and “voters.” At old Cleveland State University, you would be surprised how often these two factors came up in the science classroom.

The theory of evolution is not intellectually superior to creationism, it is morally inferior. The big issue that often arose in the science classroom, in my day, was embryonic stem cell research. Evolutionists insisted this would be the salvation of the human race. What they refused to disclose was that adult stem cells were already known to be more effective and they had ulterior motifs for wanting embryonic stem cell research to be legalized. What prevented them from receiving funds to conduct embryonic stem cell research were Christian politicians that believed that an embryo is actually a living human being. The research and use of such stem cells would require Americans to redefine the point at which human life begins. It was a loaded political, ethical, and religious issue. Evolutionists hated creationists for blocking the move. They vented their rage by claiming that creationists were out of their minds and were preventing the advancement of the human race. Do we not hear this tone in Mr. Nye’s language?

It is funny that his resentment toward creationists blinds him of his own statements. He conceded that America is the world’s most innovative country. Could that be because we have an ongoing dialogue between opposing views? Do not misunderstand.
I believe that the truth needs to be preached and I would not believe what I believe unless I believed it. I am a young earth creationist. Bill Nye appears to be an atheist. I will teach against the ideas that he holds dear and he will teach against mine. He has as much of a right to oppose my beliefs as I have to oppose his. Belittling another’s intellect, however, is not an acceptable form of debate. Debates should be conducted through facts.

Unfortunately, as the wise Homer Simpson once said, “Facts can be used to prove anything.” And so, we must endure our opponents and their remarks that drive us up the wall; creationists and atheists alike. Bill Nye takes the low road this time around. Instead of engaging in a thought-provoking debate, he chooses the path of least resistance: silence all opposition.