You can watch the uncut debate here.
The following detailed analysis should be helpful for understanding the techniques used by Bill Nye.
Use this transcript as you watch the debate. You will see the tactics in action and learn a lot about logic and fallacy. You will also understand better what is happening in the debate.
Ken Ham: Opening Statement
- Anti-Creation bias in media and attempts to control the message, muting the message of Creation
- We need to define Creation, Evolution, and science.
- Dr. Steward Burgess clip
- Observational/Experimental (empirical) science versus origins or historical science
- Raymond Damadian, Creationist, invented the MRI
- Public school text books don’t distinguish between observational and historical science.
- They arbitrarily define science as Naturalism
- They are imposing the religion of Naturalism/Atheism on students
- Explanation of the difference between Bill Nye’s Atheistic doctrine and the Christian doctrine
- The Creation/Evolution conflict is between two philosophical worldviews, two religions.
- Creation is the only viable model of historical science that is confirmed by observational science.
Bill Nye: Opening Statement
“Here tonight, we’re gonna have two stories and we can compare Mr. Ham’s story to a story from what I will call the story from the outside, from mainstream science.”
- "the story from the outside" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of innuendo, implying that there is a kind of isolated group, almost a cult, that believes what God says through the Bible. Had Bill simply stated his implication it would be easy to evaluate. He would say something like this. "Ken Han has a little group of wacko followers. They are the only people in the world to read the Bible as written and believe that God speaks through the Bible." Of course, such a statement would be easy to identify as a lie. Thus, the use of innuendo.
- "Mr. Ham’s story" Note how tightly packed the fallacies are. Nesting fallacies in this way makes them very difficult to analyze. Also, identifying the historical account that God tells us through Scripture as "Mr. Ham's story" continues the innuendo that implies that very few people believe God. It is a clever trick. In his opening sentence, Bill Nye used tactics that he continuously wove into his messages throughout the debate. By calling it “Mr. Ham’s story” rather than rationally dealing with the concept of Creation, Bill Nye used a form of ad hominem fallacy, debating about a person or personality rather than rationally dealing with the issue at hand on its merits. In addition, Bill Nye wove in a plain folks fallacy throughout the debate and used several techniques to portray Ken Ham as unapproachable, isolated, and not a plain folks type of guy like good old Bill Nye is. The repetition of "Mr. Ham" worked to that end. None of this is directly stated. Everything is by innuendo.
- "the story from the outside, from mainstream science.” The very term, mainstream science implies there is a mainstream group and anyone who disagrees with what those folks say, being the minority, should just fall in line with the old ideas of the establishment. This censoring of disagreement within the scientific community was a difficult picture for Bill Nye to paint while still maintaining that Bill Nye’s definition of science is open to new ideas. However, Bill Nye did irrationally maintain both mutually exclusive views throughout the debate, which is the logical fallacy of internal inconsistency. He was plainly holding two mutually exclusive, conflicting, views at the same time. The phrase, mainstream science, is also a fallacy of appeal to tradition.
- Bill Nye used the fallacy of misused statistics for the purpose of persuasion. Throughout the debate, Bill Nye’s main effort was to make those who follow Christ seem like the fringe of society (tactic of marginalizing), when, in fact, over 90% of Americans self-identify as Christians and about half of those receive the Bible as it is written. This is both a fallacy of relevance, specifically, bandwagon. This is a fallacy because majority opinion cannot affect reality, and the majority are often wrong. This is also a fallacy of misused statistics. Since this line of reasoning is all by innuendo rather than direct statement, it is less subject to challenge. Innuendo, in this case4, is a form of hedging. So, there are two points of fallacy: Bill Nye implied that Biblical Christianity is a fringe group and the Atheistic/Agnostic belief system is mainstream. Whether something is fringe or mainstream has no effect on reality, and a reasonable man would not be using the bandwagon fallacy.
“The question tonight is, does Ken Ham’s Creation Model hold up? Is it viable?” Continuing the fallacies of marginalization, ad hominem, and bandwagon, Bill Nye misstated the debate topic. The question tonight had just been repeated by the debate moderator as: “Is Creation a viable model of origins?” The debate has nothing to do with Ken Ham. However, fallacies are used because they are effective in manipulating people’s minds. In this case, Bill is purposely using the framing fallacy to help his cause. Bill Nye was obviously playing to the crowd for political purposes (politicking). Of course, the actual topic would require Bill Nye to show that Creation of the Universe by the Creator God is impossible, that it could not possibly have happened. Viable means possible or workable. However, that would put Bill Nye in a losing situation, since there is nothing that is observed using the scientific method that in any way conflicts with Divine, supernatural Creation. So, as you will see, Bill Nye had to resort to tricks and fallacies to push his political agenda.
“On CSI, there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science.”
- “On CSI" This is a very weak premise, an attempt to use a fictional show on TV to show reality. However, a good portion of the audience may be dumbed down enough to buy into that kind of reasoning.
- "there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science.” This was part of Bill Nye's logical fallacy of denialism, even denying that there is a difference between making observations in the present and telling stories based on assumptions about what happened in the past. (see the Observational Science / Historical Science graphic above) It appears that Bill is playing dumb here. One would think that he would be aware of the terms historical and observational science or operational science. Ken has explained that the difference hinges on assumptions. Assumptions are necessary for historical science, and there is no way to show one assumption as being superior to another so long as the assumptions don't violate known facts. In reality, there is quite a difference between historical science and observational science, even on CSI. Although, the show does have the advantage of being able move back and forth through recent history like a time machine, showing details of slow motion bullets and arrows entering into people etc. Bill implies that he can do the same thing in real life, he does this by using fallacies. The truth is that the clues being lined up in a plausible way and someone being convicted by those clues doesn't' always lead to justice in real life.. Many people who are convicted on circumstantial evidence are innocent. Inductive reasoning is, by nature, relatively weak and subject to errors in thinking. However, the world has learned to live in a virtual fake world, so Bill Nye’s statement could sway masses of people, which was his intent, as he made clear.
“There is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. These are constructs unique to Ken Ham. We don’t normally have these [historical science versus observational science] anywhere in the world except here.”
- "These are constructs unique to Ken Ham. We don’t normally have these [origins/historical science versus observational/experimental/operational/empirical science] anywhere in the world except here.” Bill Nye uses the fallacy of the outright lie. We are just supposed to take Bill Nye's word for this. Historical science is a term commonly used. Speaking of Paleontology, Wikipedia says, “Paleontology is one of the historical sciences, along with archaeology, geology, biology, astronomy, cosmology, philology and history itself.” Other sources confirmed this use of the word. The study of the past does not, obviously, involve going back in time to perform observational science. Observational science, also called empirical science, is a common term defined as “a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.” Whole departments at Universities use this term in their titles. AFIT Graduate School of Engineering and Management, for instance, has a Department of Observational Sciences. By the way, the word, normally, indicates the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
- Theoretical science is all about finding a story that fits the evidence. There is nothing wrong with this as long as you remember that your story/theory is just a story. It is not real knowledge unless it can be proven deductively. Sometimes, you can statistically show something to be highly likely (a percentage) or highly unlikely (a percentage), but every possibility must be considered, the numbers must be real, and the statistical analysis must not use fallacies. You can often discern a story that doesn't fit the evidence. Take the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story that says that billions of fossils are a record of 500 million years of death versus the Creation account that says that billions of fossils are primarily the result of a global, catastrophic Flood that was a judgment from God. The Creation account comes to us by revelation, not as a made-up story. Revelation is checkable by simply seeking God and asking Him about the Bible until He answers you. Although, this seeking involves submission, respect, and sincerity, anyone can check on it. But, let's say we have these two opinions and we take them as equal (even though one is purely make-believe and the other is revealed). We observe billions of fossils above sea level on all continents. We observe erosion rates that would erode the continents in less than 14 million years. We observe mountain building processes that would slowly replace the continents but that would not replace the fossils, so all the fossils would have to be gone in less than 14 million years. But one story , the says that most of these fossils are 100s of millions of years old, and that story has been falsified by the evidence--we still have fossils that wouldn't be there if the story were true. This means that the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story doesn't have a way to explain why there are still fossils. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story also requires explaining away several laws of science as noted on the graphic in the introduction to this page. The Creation account doesn't conflict with a single scientific observation. It only conflicts with assumptions and stories. But Bill wants the story that conflicts with scientific observation to be taught in public schools using tax dollars. And Bill Nye wants the historical account, which doesn't conflict with any observations, to be censored--he doesn't even want kids to hear the facts about it so that they can learn critical thinking. He doesn't want anyone to mention the considerable problems with the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story.
- "These are constructs unique to Ken Ham." Bill Nye uses a form of bandwagon or marginalization fallacy. By claiming that the concepts of historical and observational science are unique to Ken Ham, to one man in the world, and can only be found at the Creation Museum, Bill Nye is trying to sway opinion using bandwagon fallacy. No one likes to be marginalized, so this tactic often works on some people, but it is irrational. Again, Bill Nye continues to focus on Ken Ham, on the ad hominem fallacy rather than dealing rationally. He is attempting to show that it is the same thing to design, build, and test an invention as it is to make speculations about the past. Ever-changing speculations about the past are not verifiable or falsifiable. Equipment can be tested to see if it works. The two are different from each other. Even with engineering,
“Natural laws that applied in the past apply now. That’s why they’re natural laws. That’s why we embrace them. That’s how we made all these discoveries that enable all this remarkable technology.”
- “Natural laws that applied in the past apply now." Bill Nye is using the fallacy of the red herring and a straw man fallacy. No one said that the natural laws changed. We have no way of checking whether or not natural laws have changed. Of course, the term, natural laws, can be deceiving. This is because different people interpret the term differently. Some people imply the assumption of Naturalism (which implies that there is no cause or explanation for the natural laws, but that the natural laws are just how things are for no reason) in the term. At the same time, other people think of the term as the revealed truth that the regularity that we observe today has an explanation. That explanation is that God is the enforcer of what we call natural laws. It would be difficult to know that Bill Nye is implying that the Creation would necessitate the changing of natural laws, but later in the debate, Bill became very specific in making this claim. Of course, it is a straw man fallacy because Creation does not necessitate the changing of natural laws. In fact, Bill's claim that everything came into existence without God is a supernatural claim, violating natural laws. We have no natural explanation for something creating itself out of nothing. Bill's notion of molecules-to-man is a supernatural claim. There are several laws of science that this never-observed story violates. However, whether or not God changed the way that He is working with matter and energy is irrelevant; it is a red herring. Although, we cannot, by either revelation or observation, say whether natural laws changed in the past, the issue is really whether or not Creation took place and whether the worldwide, catastrophic Flood took place as God shows us through the Bible.
- "That’s how we made all these discoveries that enable all this remarkable technology.” Bill Nye is also using the fallacy of false cause and effect. It is not true that applying natural laws back thousands of years has or is capable of contributing to “all these discoveries that enable all this remarkable technology.” There is also the implied fallacy of appeal to consequences. The implication is that, if we believe God and what He says through the Bible, then we will not have any more scientific progress and there will be no new technology. Ken Ham effectively refuted this nonsense. The argument is against Divine revelation and in favor of human stories, assumptions, and poor logic as a prerequisite for scientific progress. In reality, stories, assumptions, and poor logic actually work against science. There are many life-saving discoveries that have come directly from the Bible.
“When you go to a crime scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past. You trust those clues and you embrace them and you move forward to convict somebody.”
- "evidence, you have clues about the past" There is a fallacy of ambiguity, specifically equivocation on the word, evidence. What is evidence? Is evidence the actual observation or is evidence the observation that must be interpreted through the filter of certain presuppositions, that is, arbitrary assumptions and stories that are treated as if they were known facts?
- Bill Nye’s statement commits the fallacy of stacking the deck, presenting only part of the picture and leaving out vital information. If the evidence is circumstantial, based on inductive reasoning, then you may not be able to convict anybody. If you do convict somebody using inductive reasoning, then you sometimes convict somebody who is innocent. You don’t trust the observations. Then, you make up stories, hypothesis, to try to come up with some idea about what might have actually happened. Making up stories is not knowledge, because stories can be true or false. If you have two stories, you would normally favor the one that has less problems with the observations. You would normally favor Creation and the worldwide Flood. If Bill eliminates Creation and the Flood as options without any rational reason to eliminate them, that is not the scientific process. It is the logical fallacy of apriorism. Scientific process involves an open mind. Many people have been put into prison on the untrue stories of detectives by juries who didn’t have an eye-witness. Some have been executed unjustly. Sometimes, stories can be right. Sometimes, they can be wrong.
“Ken Ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we see in nature.”
- “Ken Ham and his followers" Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of the implied lie. It is a lie by innuendo instead of stating the lie clearly as: "Ken Ham and a small group of people believe the Bible as it is written. No one else believes what God says through the Bible. Ken Ham claims that the worldwide Flood moved the stars around and changed the laws of physics." Stating it clearly would sound ridiculous and would be easily recognized as a straw man fallacy, so Bill uses innuendo. Then, if anyone questions Bill, innuendo gives him a built-in hedge, so he can claim that this is not what he meant. Bill Nye is marginalizing and using a bandwagon fallacy. Bill makes Bible-believers sound like a strange group hiding out in the woods--almost dangerous. Why would Bill Nye use such verbiage? Bill Nye is also using the ad hominem fallacy to try to portray Ken Ham as someone very weird, a sort of guru over a cult of followers. This was not a slip of the tongue but became a mantra of Bill Nye's throughout the debate. It is a tactic that works on some people just like bullying works on the playground. It is a kind of demonizing rather than dealing rationally with the subject at hand. As a side note, according to recent polls, about 46 percent of Americans believed in Creation by God, 32 percent believed in Theistic Evolution and only 15 percent believed, as Bill Nye believes, in the molecules-to-man story without any Divine intervention. These people surveyed are largely productive contributors to society, and many are scientists in such fields as chemistry, physics, engineering, medicine, etc. (source)
- "this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced" Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule or reductio ad absurdum, by trying to use verbiage to define the worldwide Flood as being “this remarkable view/” The word, "somehow," is used to further make this view seem weird, a belief in something that is impossible. It is a fallacy of question-begging epithet, since emotional language is used rather than rationally considering the evidence for/against the cataclysmic worldwide Genesis Flood. Of course, if Bill were to be rational and were to look at the evidence, then Bill would have to conclude that the Flood happened.
- “a worldwide flood that somehow influences everything that we see in nature.” Again, staying in the realm of innuendo rather than direct statements, Bill Nye uses the word, somehow. This is the logical fallacy of the question-begging, circular reasoning. Bill Nye is assuming the non-existence of the very thing he is arguing against. A reasonable man would show his reasons for not believing that the Flood occurred rather than resorting to circular reasoning. (It should be noted that Bill Nye did later give some reasons for his disbelief, none of which held water, but the point is that this remark, at this time, without having proved anything, was inappropriate and was a logical fallacy.
- "somehow influenced everything that we see in nature.” Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of extension, that is, exaggerating in order to make the Biblical account seem to be absurd. You can't tell it yet, since Bill very cleverly planted the seeds of his arguments early in these very vague terms. Later in the debate, he continues to build on the same idea until he finally (later in the debate) says that the Bible claims that the Flood affected the stars. Yikes! His objective is to convince everyone that there is no known way that the worldwide Flood would influence anything that we see in nature, and his method is to extend the things that the Flood did affect to things that the Flood did not affect, thus, creating a straw man that he then asks Ken to prove. This is also the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes when Bill Nye lied by saying that the Flood models claim that the Flood “influences everything that we see in nature.” By overstating in this way, taking it to the extreme which was never intended by those scientists who have developed the various Flood models, Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of appeal to extremes. This is used along with a logical fallacy of appeal to emotion and an appeal to ridicule.
- Bill Nye is using irrational thinking and innuendo to argue against what God is telling us all by Divine revelation. Since God has revealed these things to us, the fallacy is also counterfactual fallacy. A word of warning on revelation: we have to be careful in revelation, since we are only learning to hear God's voice and to respond in submission. We can make mistakes. Our own ideas can mix with what God is saying to us. We can become dogmatic about our own ideas and mistakes, falsely attributing them to God. This is seen in the many theological divisions in the Church. In fact, someone may accuse us, claiming that revelation is not reliable." Assumptions are not reliable. Human reasoning and perception is not reliable. That's why we are instructed by God to continue to seek Him in humility. We are instructed that the very doctrines that we are most convinced of are poorly understood. God will always take us to deeper understanding of everything if we continue to seek Him. We know by revelation, that we don't know as we ought to know--not even those things of which we are most sure. We are dependent on the Holy Spirit to continually teach us. If we continue to walk, the Holy Spirit will make the Truth ever more clear to us line on line and precept on precept, here a little and there a little. As a final note, the divisions in the Church over doctrine are almost always not the fault of those seeking revelation from God but the fault of those who try to use human reasoning to understand Scripture and who fail to acknowledge God or to stand in His Presence to hear His Voice.
“Five-hundred-foot wooden boat, eight zoo-keepers for 14,000 individual animals, every land plant in the world under water for a full year" Bill Nye is using a straw man fallacy again. There would not have been 14,000 animals. Every land plant would not have been under water. Skeptics tend to make the most bazaar assumptions when thinking about things that they don't want to believe. On the other hand, they will make bazaar assumptions in favor of those things that they want to believe. They aren't skeptical about everything, but their skepticism is selective and irrational. It involves the logical fallacy of special pleading.
"I ask us all" This rather strange grammar is the beginning of an argument that Bill Nye builds throughout the debate. He is including himself in the us as he makes his unsupported assertion that it is the world against Ken Ham. This is an extreme form of bandwagon fallacy.
"is that really reasonable?” Bill Nye is building his reasonable man argument early in the debate in which he makes the unsupported assertion that he, Bill, is reasonable while asserting that Ken Ham is not reasonable. Again, this is an implied statement, asking a rhetorical question. The way that the question is asked, the tone of the way Bill asked it, dripped with contempt. The obvious statement was that this is not reasonable. This is an appeal to contempt fallacy. Although a good actor like Bill can use a contemptuous attitude to manipulate people’s minds, contempt proves nothing. It has no impact on reality. None.
“The fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers. There is not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. In other words, when there is a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did. Not a single one. If you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world.”
- "There is not a single place in the Grand Canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. In other words, when there is a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. Not any one of them did. Not a single one." Even though this is an ambiguous claim, Bill makes similar claims later in the debate that are stated more clearly. Those statements about Bill's claim of a very rigid nature of the geologic column, with distinct borders between various species and families of living things, goes beyond unverified evidence. This represent the logical fallacy of the outright lie. If you read the articles below, you will find that index fossils in the wrong place is a huge problem for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, and they just re-write the story to accommodate the new discovery. They never falsify their story based on any evidence.
- "where the fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another. In other words, when there is a big flood on the Earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level." The vagueness of this statement makes it difficult to answer. It is a fallacy of ambiguity that is caused by Bill's habit of using innuendo rather that stating things clearly. Innuendo is often used as a hedging tactic by people who don't have a real reason to believe what they believe. What is meant by fossils of one type of animal cross over into the fossils of another? There is a lot of mixing of fossils. Is Bill just plain lying? If you were to ask, he could easily modify or redefine his terms in such a way that they would not be a lie--but the statement would then make no point at all. Here, he is able to make a big point with emotional impact that conveys a false impression, but he has hedged his bet in such a way that he can "clarify" (in a corner where few people will see it) and still have the benefit of fooling most of the people. It is quite plain that those animals that were more mobile did seem to escape and are found mostly in the upper layers. There is a lot of mixing though, but that is to be expected. It seems that Bill is implying that this doesn't happen when it happens all the time. Discoveries are constantly being made of fossils that are not where they are supposed to be, and none of the elite ever dare to question the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. They simple shoehorn the new data into the story.
- "If you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world.” Bill Nye gives the false impression that he is open to evidence that is contrary to his belief along with a sort of a plain folks fallacy. While projecting a false open-mindedness, Bill makes incompatible statements that expose a mind that is so closed that it doesn't even want to rationally evaluate anything that disagrees with it's internal fake reality. This closed-mindedness seems to be very targeted against Jesus Christ. He even wants those who disagree with him, or who have come to different conclusions, to be silenced (message control). He doesn't want discussion of this issue in public, particularly where it may encourage critical thinking. He especially wants to keep students in the dark on these issues. This would be the logical fallacy of inconsistency.
- In the entire argument presented above, Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance, since his claim is really that if we don’t know of any fossils that are found in the wrong place, then there are no fossils that exist in the wrong place. Now, we find a growing number of out-of-place fossils that change the definitions of the geologic column with each discovery. And new stories, rescuing mechanisms, are constantly being made up to explain these out-of-place fossils as they are found. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story is a religion. It cannot be falsified by any observation, since there can always be a story, no matter how fantastic, to explain away the evidence against the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story.
“Now, I just want to remind us all, there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community from their religion. They worship together. They eat together. They live in their communities and enjoy each other’s company. Billions of people, but these same people do not embrace the ‘extraordinary’ view that the Earth is ‘somehow’ only 6,000 years old. That is unique.”
- "I just want to remind us all” This isa bandwagon fallacy inserted into a grammatical presupposition inserted into a sentence. If Bill is "reminding" us, then there is no need to question anything that he says, since he is merely reminding us of what we already know. Also notice the strange grammar again, "us all”. This is a very subtle technique that he is using to continue to build his "the world against Ken Ham" argument, which is an extreme form of bandwagon fallacy.
- “there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion.” This is a logical fallacy of understatement. Bill Nye is implying that the purpose of the Church is to get enriched by the wonderful sense of community. The fact is that the purpose of the Church is to so come to know Christ so that we becomes transformed into His same image from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord. And there is much more to it than that. When someone knows nothing about a subject, it would be helpful if they would avoid speaking as an expert on the subject.
- “these same people do not embrace the ‘extraordinary’ view that the Earth is ‘somehow’ only 6,000 years old. That is unique.” Bill Nye is using the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Lapidem, with the word, "extraordinary," implying that a belief is absurd without proving it to be absurd. Here Bill Nye also employs the logical fallacies of marginalizing, bandwagon, and creating a false impression to manipulate the minds of the audience to his political view. Bill Nye also uses the logical fallacy of the outright lie, saying, “the extraordinary view that the Earth is ‘somehow’ only 6,000 years old. That is unique.” It is not unique. Bill makes this statement to marginalize, but it is clearly false. The belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old is shared by about half (46%) of all Americans. So this lie was perpetrated to activate the logical fallacy of bandwagon, but how many people believe something can have no possible impact on what reality is. Perhaps Bill is saying that anyone who disagrees with him is holding an extraordinary view.
- "people in the world who are deeply religious" Bill Nye is also lumping unlike things, many religions, as if they were one thing, which is the logical fallacy of faulty analogy. The fact is that everyone is religious. Atheism is a religion, but Atheists don’t want it classified as a religion, so they resort to using the definist fallacy by defining religion in a way that Atheists are not included but all theists are included. So Bill puts Satanists in with Christians, but he excludes Atheists and Agnostics. However, Satanists have more in common with Atheists and Agnostics than they do with Christians. In fact, the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story is really a religious dogma. They define the word, religion, in a way that includes everyone but themselves. However, their belief in not God or their belief that no one can know God is based on vapor, made up stuff. It is held on make-believe faith. And, Atheists do “get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion.” Atheism is a philosophy about God. It is a belief that God doesn’t exist. Agnosticism is a belief that no one can know anything about God or spiritual things. Both are irrational in many ways, but they are religions. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story is a religious doctrine of Atheism, and most Agnostics believe it as well. Lumping followers of Christ in with all the other religions misses the point. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. All things came into existence by Him and without Him there is nothing that came into existence. We know this by revelation. The Holy Spirit Himself tells us this. This makes Jesus Christ unique and not to be lumped in with any religions. Some people make their walk with Jesus Christ into a religion form or ritual, but this is not what the Bible prescribes. Others make their walk into an entertainment, but this is not what God tells us through Scripture. Some make it about a doctrine an organization, a preacher or religious leader, or many other things that are unBiblical. But there is no other foundation for the Church other than Jesus Christ, Himself. The Church is unique, but there are many disorders and divisions, which the Holy Spirit will eliminate.
“What keeps the United States ahead, what makes the United States a world leader, is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science, eschew the process, and try to divide science into observational science and historic science, we are not going to move forward, we’ll not embrace natural laws, we’ll not make discoveries, we’ll not invent and innovate and stay ahead.”
- This is the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence. This consequence is bogus, but even if there are real consequences (such as, if there is a God, then everyone is responsible to find Him and come into submission and obedience to Him), hating those consequences has no power to change reality. In fact, Bill is presenting the logical fallacy of slippery slope. That is why appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy. Generally, as in this case, the appeal to consequence presents a bogus consequence that won't even happen. In fact, the United States is going down--we are watching it be destroyed--by the Secular Humanist worldview that has taken over the public school systems, the news media, the entertainment industry, and a high percentage of Churches. The big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story requires so much illogical thinking that students who are subjected to it don't know the difference between an arbitrary assumption and an observation. This can be seen on millions of blog posts by people who believe the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. Bill's claim that understanding the difference between observational and historical science would cause us to not move forward, to reject natural laws, to not made discoveries, invent, or innovate is a non sequitur.
- This is also the logical fallacy of unsupported assertion. Bill Nye’s claim goes against the evidence. Yes, Atheistic scientists do exercise religious bigotry and discrimination against scientists who believe the Bible as written, but, in spite of that, Ken Ham showed that there are many scientists who are doing important work and successfully getting published in the Secular journals. Plus, there are many examples where the arbitrary presupposition of Naturalistic religion and the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story has slowed scientific progress. Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to name one piece of technology that could only have been developed using with a belief in the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story?” Bill Nye simply ignored the question and continues to ignore that question because there are none. There is not one. This shows that Bill Nye is using the fallacy of the unsupported assertion. (Note that the Internet is buzzing with Atheists claiming to have solved this. There are some that say a certain piece of research would not have been done except for the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. Claims like that are not viable because they make so many assumptions. There are some discoveries or advances that use the word, Evolution, to describe the advances, but they don't mean the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, which was Ken Ham's intent. Some cite the fact there are mutations or that there are adaptations caused by turning genes on and off, which is missing the point. What is at issue is the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story. And then there are some who cite a scientific article that uses the word, Evolution, to describe something in the present that is not the big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story, again missing the point.)
- Bill Nye has also used the fallacy of equivocation by equating two things that are not the same. He is equating “eschewing science” with “believing what God says. The fact is that God's historical account explains the world better than the very complex big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story that has been developed without God. Not only that, but the very complex big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story has to explain away known laws of science. Once again, Bill did this using fuzzy language which makes bad logic harder to detect. This is also the logical fallacy of false either/or. It is very possible and common to love science and also believe what God says when what God says explains the world better than the very complex and convoluted big-bang-billions-of-years-molecules-to-man story.
Last updated: Aug, 2014
Answers for Witness
Stories Versus Revelation
Creation, Flood, Etc.
Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins?
Creation Debate: Opening Statements
Toons & Vids
Creation Debate Issue #1: Assumptions Versus Divine Revelation
Creation Debate Issue #2: Historical Science/Observational Science versus Just Science
Creation Debate Issue #3: The Topic of the Debate
Creation Debate Issue #4: Predictability
Creation Debate Issue #5: Personality and Other Irrelevance
Creation Debate: Each Man's Purpose in Debating
Creation Debate: Opening Statements
Creation Debate: Presentations
Creation Debate: Rebuttals
Creation Debate Counter Rebuttals
Creation Debate: Questions from the Audience
Answer to Critic
Appeal to Possibility
Argument to the Future
Love Between a Man and Woman
Righteousness & Holiness
Proof by Atheism
Scriptures About Marriage
The Reason for Rejecting Truth
Witness on the Internet
Flaky Human Reasoning
How Do You Know?
The Real Purpose of the Church
The Real Purpose of Life
From Glory to Glory
REAL Faith--What it IS & IS NOT
REAL Love--What it IS & IS NOT
How to be Led by God
How to Witness
Wisdom: Righteousness & Reality
Holiness & Mind/Soul
Redemption: Free From Sin
Stories Versus Revelation
Circular Reasoning-Who is Guilty?
How Can We Know Anything?
Mind Designed to Relate to God
Answers for the Confused
Fossil Record Says: "Creation"
Avoid These Pitfalls
Public School's Religion
Public School Failures
How can we know anything about anything?
That's the real question