Bill Nye on video lying about evidence!

Bill Nye on video lying about evidence! I wrote that headline to grab people's attention. It's a little sensational, I'll admit, but I still mean it to be literal. I'm referring to the 2 hour video released by Answers in Genesis where Nye debates Ken during a tour of the recently opened Ark Encounter. Is it just me or is Nye really that rude of a person? He referred to several AiG staff scientists as “incompetent,” despite their doctorate degrees from reputable colleges like Harvard or Ohio State; he told Ken Ham he needed to study geology more; he told Ark visitors they needed to go to university; and concluded his tour saying that he couldn't be friends with someone like Ken Ham, though he might try to rescue him if he were drowning or something like that. That last comment was real big of you Nye! //RKBentley rolls his eyes// Look, there are people with whom I disagree but who aren't jerks. Bill Nye is a jerk. Maybe it's not very Christian of me to say that. I must say that Ken Ham was very gracious with Nye, even praying for him after Nye's comment that he might rescue him from drowning (which I guess also means he might not). But you can see in the video that Nye seemed to annoy even Ham at different times.

Anyway, back to my point of Nye lying. I haven't counted, but I would guess Nye used the term, “evidence” at least fifty times during his tour of the Ark. How he used the term, though, was often, grossly misleading.

Before I get into Nye's use of the word, let me talk a little bit about what evidence is and what it's not. Evidence is raw data. It's facts or observations. Contrary to the popular expression, facts don't really speak for themselves. Evidence just is. What we do, then, is look at the evidence and invent theories to try to explain why the evidence is the way it is. What is this thing? How did it get here? What might I conclude from it? Theories are our attempts to make sense of the evidence. A good theory should seem to explain the evidence reasonably well. In any case, the evidence itself is mute and doesn't care about our theories. In other words, the evidence is never really “for” a theory.

Some people, like Nye, conflate their theories with the evidence. During the video, Nye routinely makes comments like (paraphrasing), “All the evidence says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.” Do you see what I mean? The evidence doesn't say anything. Bill Nye subscribes to a theory – his interpretation of the evidence – that says the earth is billions of years old. But he never says, “My theory is that the earth is billions of years old”; he merely repeats over and over, “The evidence says it.”

Evolutionists believe they have a monopoly on the evidence. It's sort of a game of dibs where, once evolutionists explain the evidence, that evidence is not available to explained by any other theory. The earth can't be young because they've already said it's old. There is no evidence for creation because it's already been used for evolution! Evolutionists do this so that when we disagree with their theory, it looks like we're disagreeing with the evidence. Tsk, tsk.

Nye certainly did this in the video. On a couple of occasions, Ken Ham tried to pin Nye down on the differences between the evidence and the conclusions we draw on the evidence. About 52 minutes into the video, for example, Ham and Nye are talking about tree rings. It's Nye's contention that there are living trees that can be dated to before the time of the Flood based on their rings. Ham counters that the rings aren't evidence in the sense that Nye is using them. Rings are something that simply exist in the present. We could count the rings of a tree and extrapolate backwards (4,000 rings means 4,000 years old) but we know that trees sometimes grow more than one ring per year. So 4,000 rings is the evidence and 4,000 years is a conclusion about the evidence. Even after Nye acknowledged that multiple rings can grow in trees each year, when Ham asked him if he could then be wrong about his conclusion, Nye stubbornly refused to concede even that simple point. “No. Absolutely not,” Nye says, “.... My interpretation with respect to the age on the earth in this regard is absolutely correct.” Time after time during the entire video, Nye offers his theory while calling it the evidence.

But look, if all Nye did was conflate his theory with the evidence, I wouldn't necessarily say he was “lying” - though it is still grossly misleading. However, Nye made other statements that were even more misleading. At about 1:17 in the video, Ken Ham mentions the account in Joshua where the sun stopped in the sky. Bill Nye replies, “Why would it do that? There's no evidence for that.”

That's very curious. What type of evidence would Bill Nye expect there to be for such an event? Historical events cannot be studied scientifically. I could ask, for example, “Where is the evidence that George Washington crossed the Delaware?” You can't study the river and discover it. The only way we can know it happened is because people who lived at the time wrote that it happened. The written accounts are the only evidence we have. And the evidence we have for Washington's crossing of the Delaware is the same evidence we have for Joshua's long day. Nye doesn't have to believe the written account but to say there is no evidence is a lie.

From there, Nye segues into a point he made several times in the video. He defines science to mean “the search for a natural explanation.” According to Nye, any time you invoke a miracle, it's not science. Of course, however a person defines science does not change what is true. If God stopped the motion of the planets for 12 hours, then that is what happened regardless if Nye thinks it's scientific. Nye desperately wants people to believe that, if something isn't scientific, it's not true. Nye told Ham he was “absolutely” wrong about Joshua's long day. Such a rebuke implies that Nye has absolute knowledge of the event. We know he doesn't. Therefore, Nye's continuous appeals to the “evidence” or to an arbitrary definition of science is pure bluff.

This leads me to Nye's most blatant lie about evidence. While Nye was waxing on about the account from Joshua and how science does not allow miracles, Ham interrupts him and asks, “Why should I accept your definition [of science]?” Nye pauses for a moment, then, with a straight face, replies, “Because we have so much evidence for it.”

You can watch him make the offensive remark at 1:18 on the video. Nye actually claims there is evidence for natural-only definition of science. Incredible! Please, Nye, show me this evidence! Where in the universe can I observe it? Can I put it under a microscope or weigh it on a scale or hold it against a ruler? Can I put it in a test tube?

Perhaps Nye is ignorant about how much of science is based on philosophy rather then evidence. In one Big Think video, Nye admits he's skeptical of some of the claims of philosophy. What he doesn't seem to realize is that his “natural only” view of the universe has a philosophical premise. It's a tenet of science – a belief akin to religious faith.

In his dogged determination to prove Ken Ham wrong, Nye repeated the word “evidence” over and over and over. He said there was no evidence for miracles but there was evidence for his definition of science. Watch the video for yourself. Time and time again, Nye lied about evidence.

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 2 – The Total Depravity of Man

As I discussed in my last post, the 5 points of Calvinism are summarized with the acronym, TULIP. The letters stand for:

• Total depravity of man
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Preservation of the saints

Fundamental to Calvinism is the idea that mankind is totally depraved. He is a hopeless sinner who is not only completely unable to do good works but also lacks even the desire to do good. Therefore, a man is totally without any power to even call on God to save him. According to Calvinism, a man lacks the ability or desire to be saved in the same way a dead person lacks the ability or desire to come out of the grave. It's impossible.

There are some verses in the Bible that support this concept:

John 6:63, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing”

Romans 3:10-11, “as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God.” (Paul is paraphrasing Psalm 14)

Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?”

John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

If I read only these verses and nothing else in the Bible, I would have to agree 100% that a man could not and would not come to God by his own will. However, there are other verses that we must consider.

Joshua 24:15, “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

1 Kings 18:21, “Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.””

Isaiah 1:18, ““Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.”

As clearly as the first passages seemed to say we are unable to come to God, these other passages seem clearly seem to say we have a choice. I admit that it seems to be a dilemma. I think the key to understanding all verses in harmony hinges on the realization that God is sovereign but even the sovereignty of God is a difficult subject to grasp.

My point here is not to establish which verses are “correct.” The fact of the matter is that all the verses are correct. Neither am I trying to suggest what is the more likely understanding. Like I've already said, I only intend to discuss the different points of view. As we can see, Scriptural support for either view can be found. It would be rather narrow minded of us to cling dogmatically to one or the other and “explain away” the opposing verses. A better course of action would be to trust that God is loving, merciful, and just and know that He will always do what is right.

We need to simply trust in Jesus as our Savior without worrying about whether or not we were predestined to do so.

A Review: State of the Nation 2 with Ken Ham

Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis , gave the group's 2nd “State of the Nation” address. All I can say is – he nailed it! Well, that's not all I can say.

He subtitled his address, “Reminders Removed,” a reference to Joshua 4:4-7 where men from each of the twelve tribes piled up stones in order to leave a reminder to their children how God had provided for them. Today in America, we have forgotten the Christian traditions upon which this nation was founded. Ham brought out many quotes of President Obama where the President said, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.” In many ways, the President is right; the reminders that we were once a Christian nation are progressively being removed. Prayer, creation, the 10 Commandments, the Bible, and the mention of God have all been removed from public schools. Things like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage are now being eroded by practices like abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage.

Ham expressed (correctly) that the increase in apostasy has followed increased compromise on the word of God. Much of this compromise involves an attempt to reconcile the Bible with man's opinion. This is a dangerous practice because whenever God's word opposes man's opinion, it is usually God's word that gets compromised

This watering down of the word has caused people to reject the Bible and their faith outright. After all, if the Bible is wrong on one point (such as the Genesis account of creation) then how can it be trusted on any point? This is a logical question and rather than trust the Bible over man's opinion, many people have chosen to reject the Bible. Ham referenced several times the new book, Already Gone where this phenomenon has been detailed.

As faith has waned, society hasn't become a neutral vacuum concerning religion. Rather, popular culture is becoming increasing hostile toward Christians. Such an attitude is in agreement with Matthew 12:30, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Rejection of God is replaced with secular humanism which worships the creation and mocks God (Romans 1:20-25). Ham played this shocking video of Professor Lawrence Krauss from Arizona State University:

Besides the shocking comments, I was almost as equally shocked by the laughter and cheers from his students.

But Ham doesn't spend an entire hour wringing his hands over how bad everything is. He details the situation but also offers the solution: a return to the Bible.

The video is a good watch and a must see for every Christian. I recommend everyone invest an hour of their time to see it.

Why was the Law given?

A lot of Christians today struggle with the belief that we are not under the law but are under grace. While it is true that keeping the Law does not save us (Ephesians 2:8-9), we must remember that Jesus did not do away with the Law. It still continues and serves much the same purpose today as it did when God gave it to us.

There are at least 3 functions of the Law:

First, it helps us live lives that are happy, joyous, and successful (Joshua 1:8) while at the same time are pleasing to God. The Law isn’t a list of restrictions that stop us from “having fun.” Rather, it shows us the best way to live. The Psalmist said that he delights in the Law and without it he would perish in his affliction (Psalm 119:92). It’s been my experience that people who habitually live immoral lives tend to be miserable people.

Next, the Law is our judge. For the Christian, we are going to be judged for our rewards (1 Corinthians 3:11-13). The lost person will be judged by his works for salvation (Revelation 20:12). But how can God be a just Judge if He has not made known to us His standard? If I’m arrested and thrown into jail, I want to know what crime I’ve committed. If the judge just says, “We’ll I’m sending you to prison just because you’ve been ‘bad’” then he would be an unjust judge; he has not shown me how I’ve broken the law. The Law of God, then, is the standard by which we will be judged. When the Christian receives his reward, and the lost person receives his fates, they will know that God has dealt with them justly because they know what the standard was.

Finally, the Law shows us the need of a Savior. Paul said, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24) If we do not see that we are sinners, then why would we believe we need a Savior? If you think about it, no one has kept ANY of the commandments (let alone all of them). If we stand before God in judgment, we would have no hope of salvation. But I will not stand before God alone; I have an advocate – Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1). It is only by His works that I am made righteous. I lament for that person who will stand before God thinking he’s been “good” but has rejected the only One who was good.

So, concerning the Law, remember the words of Jesus, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matthew 5:17-18