Bill Nye on abortion

Bill Nye on abortion

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Not long ago, Bill Nye-the Science Guy posted a video about abortion, or women’s rights concerning the choice of abortion.

No doubt this is a difficult issue, and I have recently tackled the problem of abortion from the most difficult perspective of rape and incest. So responding to a pro-choice video with relatively short replies hardly does the issue justice.

Nevertheless, I decided it would be worth my time to respond within the context of the video, as opposed to someone watching the video and then hoping they would read my two or three page response in a blog post.


#8 of 50 Questions Christians Can’t Answer

#8 of 50 Questions Christians Can’t Answer

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Above Image by Valdas Miskinis from Pixabay

How is it that the bible explains the earth to be 6,000 to 8,000 years old when we know that dinosaur bones are at least 65 million years old? This isn’t the only example of our planet’s age by any means, either.

This is one of those ‘in house’ discussions that even educated and intelligent Christians do not agree on. Pucket is also guilty of a strawman fallacy, by misrepresenting or fabricating someone’s position on an issue, so it is easier to attack.

Pucket, who asked the above question, and 49 other questions, lump all Christians as ‘Young Earthers, when many Christians do not hold to a young earth view. I personally do not hold to a young earth, but anyone who spends just a few minutes researching a young and old earth view will find scholars on both sides of this issue.

For example, many have heard of Ken Ham and his life long work at answersingenesis which publishes books, video’s, and other materials in support of a young earth view. Also, his recent debate with Bill Nye the Science Guy brought this issue to some headlines. Both sides, science and religion, claim victory. I spent a few minutes looking at online magazines and popular blogging sites, and without fail, the secular science sites give Bill Nye the win, and the Christian oriented sites said Ken Ham won. Reminds me of the demographics when you look at the percent of whites vs blacks who voted for President Obama. 

It is interesting that many who are troubled with an old earth view have no problem with verses concerning the earth not moving. For example: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 104:5, and 1Samuel 2:8. John Lennonx points out in his book, Seven Day’s that Divide The World, that the Bible even has passages about the sun moving. Psalm 19:4-6 and Ecclesiastes 1:5. Lennox also wrote, “Why do Christians accept this ‘new’ interpretation, and not still insist on a ‘literal’ understanding of the pillars of the earth? Why are we not still split up into fixed-earthers and moving-earthers? Is it really because we have all compromised, and made Scripture subservient to science?” 1

Of course not! We now know that Copernicus in the 1500’s was correct; the earth is revolving around the sun. Its path takes a year at the speed of 67,000 mph. No one doubts this, well, no one I know of does. No one that I know of still insists the earth is unmoved, with the starry heavens revolving around the earth. Yet when Copernicus first suggested this, and then Galileo in the 1600’s attempted to confirm it, the Church made it clear Galileo was to keep quiet about it. Galileo was not tortured or beaten, as many liberal historians would suggest, but he was slapped on the hand and put under house arrest in a luxurious mansion. This was the beginning of the science vs. religion mentality that continues today.

Read the question again. Pucket is right. Dinosaur bones are not the only way we can date the age of the earth. Although carbon dating is relatively accurate, it is not without its hiccups. Fossils are also dated by their location in the sedimentary layers, yet this also can have suspect assumptions. If sediments laid down in same rate over thousands or millions of years it would be easy to date, but any laymen knows this is not the case. Couple that with the plate tectonics, dating by sedimentary layers can be troubling to say the least. In my recent post about Noah’s ark and the account of the flood, I touched on the possibility of a massive flood in the past 5000 years. Robert Ballard and his team have found evidence of that possibility with a shoreline in the Mediterranean 400′ below the surface of the sea.

Yet we do have evidence beyond carbon dating, beyond the depth of fossils in sedimentary layers, and plate tectonics. Evidence that does point to an old earth. The two that come to mind are the ice cores and distant galaxies.

The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry has an article on ice cores. “Antarctica is the coldest, windiest, highest and driest continent on Earth. That’s right – the driest ! Antarctica is a desert. The annual precipitation of snow, averaged across the continent, is about 30 centimeters, which is equivalent to about 10 centimeters of water. In some locations as little as 2 centimeters, [about ¾ of an inch] (water equivalent) is recorded. Because of the low temperatures, however, there is little or no melt. Thus the snow has accumulated year after year for thousands of years and, with time, is compressed to ice to form the Antarctic ice sheet. 2

Ice cores are tubes of ice that are drilled out of large ice sheets or glaciers. Greenland has produced some with dates beyond 120,000 years old, and cores from Antarctica well over 500,000 years old. 3 Ice cores give information about past climates trapped in the tiny bubbles of air, but they can also give us dates by the layers that can be counted, much like you would count the rings of a tree to determine how old it is.
Yes, the rings compress the further down you drill for the core, and there are other climate factors that could make some dating of the ice cores problematic, but like the carbon dating, the accuracy is widely accepted in the scientific community.

By and large, the scientific community accepts the Big Bang theory. The theory that the universe began billions of years ago from some unimaginably small, yet inconceivable bright flash of energy. Could the universe have somehow caused itself? Nothing in our experience of science even remotely suggests that something could be the cause of its own existence.

Tim Keller wrote in his book, The Reason For God, “Everything we know in this world is ‘contingent’, has a cause outside of itself. Therefore the universe, which is just a huge pile of such contingent entities, would itself have to be dependent on some cause outside of itself. Something had to make the Big Bang happen – but what?” 4 As Christians, as Believers, we know just what that is.

If the Big Bang is true and we have other galaxies millions of light years away, then how could we possibly see the light from them if the speed limit of light is set at 186,000 miles per second? Yes, that is fast, but even at that speed the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is just over 4.3 light years away. That is the nearest star in our own Milky Way galaxy. We have over 200 billion stars in our own galaxy, and beyond that, estimations of 200 to 500 billion galaxies outside our own. The light from some of those distant galaxies have taken millions of years to reach us.


Bible scholars do not agree on the age of the earth or how to interpret time-spans in the early chapters of Genesis. With that in mind, the question above, asked by Pucket, implies and makes the assumption that all Christians are young-earthers, and that is certainly not the case. Nor is it the case that Genesis 1 and science conflict with each other.

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe wrote a large volume titled, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, addressing this very issue, “There is no demonstrated contradiction of fact between Genesis 1 and science. There is only a conflict of interpretation. Either, most modern scientists are wrong in insisting the world is billions of years old, or else some Bible interpreters are wrong in insisting on only 144 hours of creation some several thousand years before Christ with no gaps allowing millions of years. But, in either case it is not a question of inspiration of Scripture, but of the interpretation of Scripture (and of the scientific data).”5


1. Lennox, John. Seven Days That Divided The World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011, Print.
2. “Ice Core Dating.” Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. 1998. Web. 10 September 2014
3. “Ice cores and climate change” British Antarctic Survey. 2014. Web 12 September 2014
4. Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God. New York: Penguin Group, 2008. Print.
5. Geisler, Norman. Howe, Thomas. The Big Book Of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992, Print.

Creative Commons License
43 Questions Christians can’t answer by James Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at

Bill Nye The Science Guy knows what is best for our Children?

Reading Time: 6 minutes

This Bill Nye clip has 5.5 millions views on Youtube. “Denial of Evolution is unique to the United States.” 1  The first words out of the mouth of Bill Nye The Science Guy are rubbish. Michael Reiss, who teaches at the Institute of Education in London, says, “In London, where I work, there are increasingly quite large numbers of highly intelligent 16, 17 and 18-year-olds doing Advanced Level Biology who do not accept evolution. That’s either because they come from a fundamentalist Christian background or from Muslim backgrounds.” 2

In Spiegel Online, a very popular German magazine, Jens Lubbadeh wrote an article titled, “Contesting Evolution: European Creationists Take On Darwin.” It even has a sub heading titled Not Just Americans. Lubbadeh wrote, “For many years, people have viewed creationism as a purely American phenomenon. The fact is, however, that there are also creationist currents in Europe, too, and an anti-evolution movement that is even less homogenous than the one in the US.” 3

John Lennox, a professor in Mathematics at the University of Oxford, has debated Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens concerning the existence of God. Dr. Lennox has lectured all over Europe and said this concerning evolution, “The unimaginable complexity of living systems and their regulatory mechanisms revealed to us by molecular biology surely bears the hallmark of designing intelligence every bit as much, if not more, than the fine-tuned physical universe on which these mechanisms ultimately depend.” 4

Finally, one more example of a European creationist, Alister McGrath, author of several books, who also holds a PhD in molecular biophysics, a degree from Oxford, and resides in the United Kingdom wrote, “Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain.” 5

I hope I am making my point clear. Don’t believe everything you hear from Bill Nye. To suggest that those ignorant conservative Christians in the United States hold the market on criticism of evolution is absurd. You think I am reading between the lines? Continue watching the Youtube video, he says toward the end, “Don’t make your kids do it, [deny evolution]. We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and tax payers for the future.” 6


So if you don’t believe in evolution, you are unscientific and illiterate. Not only that, you will vote for the wrong people in office and be a member of some kind of political party who is incapable of making an informed decision. Probably the same political party that is homophobic, anti-choice, and pro-gun, would like to see prayer back in schools, and actually believe America, despite its faults, has a pretty good thing going with the Constitution. This mind set is not unique to Bill Nye. Evolutionists everywhere make the claim that if you don’t believe in evolution, you are foolish, ignorant, uneducated, and a Bible thumping religious fanatic, who has no business influencing or educating our youth of today.

Let’s take a moment here and define evolution so we are all on the same page. There are three basic definitions when we are talking about evolution.
1. Change over time.
2. Micro evolution (Changes within a species. For example, the different breeds of dogs.)
3. Macro evolution (Changes from one species to another species. For example, from a snake to a rabbit.)

I have no problem with evolution defined in its most basic sense, that is change over time. As I look in the mirror to shave I see evidence of change over time as the few gray hairs I once had have multiplied at an alarming rate. Nor do I have issue with Micro evolution, which by the way, is often the examples science books give. Quite misleading if you ask me. Science books commonly explain evolution and then the evidence they give for Macro evolution are actually examples of micro evolution. Darwin’s finches are an example of Micro evolution.

Evolution, to some degree, can explain the diversity of life, not the creation of life. The Stanley Miller experiment in the 1953 that most adults reading this post will remember from their High School science books, was touted as having created life in the lab. That is, life from non-life. This experiment has been disproved time and time again. Other examples that evolutionists share are Darwin’s tree of life, Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos, (see my post concerning Haeckel’s Embryos) and the missing link, archeopteryx.

It is a wide spread misconception that evolution is strongly supported by the fossil record, when quite the opposite is true. Evidence for definition three, Macro evolution, has little, if any, confirmation within the fossil record. Darwin himself, (another European I might add), wrote this in The Origin of Species, “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [should] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” 7  Darwin recognized the lack of evidence in the fossil record, but the public impression, fed by the media, claims Darwinian Evolution is the answer to the diversity of life on earth. This assumption is made all the more ludicrous when evolutionists cannot supply an answer to how life even began. How do you get life from non-life? Order from disorder? Christians could even give evolutionists Macro evolution on a silver platter, with all the pomp and circumstance of the crowning of a new king, but then ask the newly crowned king, “How did it all begin?” The room would fall silent for lack of an answer.

In 2001, hundreds of scientists gathered to let the world know one thing. There were molecular biologists, engineers, chemists, geologists, astrophysicists, anthropologists, zoologists to name a few. Their doctorates came from Cambridge, Standford, Cornell, Yale, Berkley, Purdue and others. Also staff from Plasma Physics Lab at Princeton, National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian, Los Alamos Lab, and the Lawrence Livermore Lab. They published a two page ad in a national magazine titled, “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.” They are skeptical of evolution and encourage everyone not to accept it as a fact. 8

Most of you know that I teach for a living and have for years. I can promise you when I teach science in the classroom, I will be sure to share my views with my students. I will point out the short comings and unanswered questions Darwinian evolution cannot answer. Despite what the media reports, despite what high profile figures such as Bill Nye say about evolution, and despite the hold Darwinists have on the minds of our youth in the form of curriculum in the public schools, I will continue to share a view point that will be counter to what most will teach. Since when was morality dictated by popular opinion? Dan Story wrote in his book, The Christian Combat Manual, “Creationists are not afraid of evolution. In fact, most creationists prefer that students also be taught evolution because when the two models are compared, it become clear that creation better accounts for the scientific data.” 9

Some of you may have heard of Anthony Flew, an atheist since he was in his teens, a British philosopher out of Oxford, author and debater, who in the last few years of his life became a believer in God. Flew said, “It is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and developed into an extraordinary, complicated creature of which we have no examples. There must have been some intelligence.” 10

I am not the fan of Bill Nye I used to be, as I have begun to look a little more critically at his comments and lectures. Since I have been in education, I have watched dozens of his film clips with my students, educating youth on the particulars of science, all the while making the process funny, entertaining, and interesting. As talented as Bill Nye is, he does not have the market on truth and wisdom. Even a clown who entertains children on a daily basis, who has made thousands of children laugh and smile, will not know what is best for your children. Neither will Bill Nye The Science Guy. Yes, we need scientific and literate voters for the future, but teaching them creationism will not subtract from their education, intelligence, or ability to pay taxes. I would say stick to teaching science Bill Nye and stay out of politics, but I am not sure he even has a good grip on the science end of things if he thinks teaching Darwinian Evolution is necessary for intelligent, literate voters.


1. Big Think. “Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children. Online Video Clip. YouTube, 23 Aug. 2012 Web. 13 July. 2013.
2. Butt, Riazat. “Migration is spreading creationism across Europe, claims academic.”The Guardian., 13 November 2009. Web. 15 July 2013
3. Lubbadeh, Jens. “Contesting Evolution: European CreationistsTake On Darwin.” Spiegel Online International., 25 February 2009. Web. 15 July 2013
4. Lennox, John. God’s Undertaker Has Science Buried God? Oxford: Lion Books, 2009. Print.
5. McGrath, Alister. “Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond.” Beliefnet., 2005. 17 July 2013.
6. Ibid
7. Darwin, Charles. World’s Classics Edition, Oxford,Oxford University Press, 1985. Print.
8. Strobel, Lee The Case for a Creator Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Print.
9. Story, Dan. Christian Combat Manual Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2007. Print.
10. LeBlanc, Douglas. Atheists and Theists Analyze Antyony Flew’s Newfound Deism. Christian Research Institute., 11 June 2009. Web. 17 July 2013.

Pin It on Pinterest