A Week of Bill Nye the Humanist Guy

Recently a video on YouTube entitled “Creationism is inappropriate for children” was produced by Bill Nye (known as Bill Nye the Science Guy” from television), and it received over three million views—and gained much publicity through the secular media.

AiG responded to Nye’s anti-creationist video with a detailed article on the AiG website and also two videos on YouTube. In one video, I decided to personally respond and with the title “Bill Nye the Humanist Guy.” Bill Nye was given the humanist of the year award in 2010 and has a definite anti-God agenda. So it should not be surprising to anyone that he would come out with such a blast at those who don’t teach children evolution as fact—as he wants to see happen.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this anti-creation video has been posted as Bill Nye has a new video show coming on YouTube.  I’m sure he and those producing his new show realized that if they came out against creationists, particularly in regard to the teaching of children, they would get all sorts of publicity leading up to their new show.

I encourage you to watch both YouTube videos produced by AiG and the Creation Museum—they both expose Bill Nye and the falsity of his arguments…

Read the rest of this entry from Ken Ham»

Advertisements
This entry was posted in apologetics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to A Week of Bill Nye the Humanist Guy

  1. “I encourage you to watch both YouTube videos produced by AiG and the Creation Museum—they both expose Bill Nye and the falsity of his arguments…”

    Sorry, but I don’t look to non-scientists to tell me about science. So AiG and the Creation Museum can talk about religion all they want, but their attempts at talking about science fall flat.

  2. AiG is full of scientists with PhDs in their field. Including geology and biology. Have you ever looked at any of their resources?

  3. “AiG is full of scientists with PhDs in their field. Including geology and biology. Have you ever looked at any of their resources?”

    By ‘full of’ you mean ‘has less than 1% of all scientists’.

  4. Ken Hamrick says:

    NotAScientist,

    Actually, you are looking to scientists to tell you about religion, if you are looking to them to tell you about origins. Any endeavor to understand origins is an inherently religious endeavor, whether or not it is acknowledged as such. Because observation of origins is impossible, it must be approached with some religio-philosophical basis that requires the benefit of the doubt as to the accuracy or appropriateness of that basis. Creationists approach origins with an a priori faith in the inerrancy of Scripture and a supernatural Creator; while secular scientists approach origins with an a priori faith in materialistic naturalism, which is an unprovable religious belief that all things have originated and arrived at their current state through natural means and processes.

  5. “Actually, you are looking to scientists to tell you about religion, if you are looking to them to tell you about origins.”

    No.

    The ‘origins of the universe’ is a scientific question. Religions have claimed to have answers, but I see no good reason to think their answers are correct or even in the right direction.

  6. Ken Hamrick says:

    @5 NotAScientist,

    Your claim, “The ‘origins of the universe’ is a scientific question,” is a religious claim. It is a denial of even the possibility of a supernatural creation. The denial of God and the supernatural acts of God are just as religious as the affirmations. You say that you “see no good reason to think [that religious] answers are correct…” But God has told us, in the Book of Romans, chapter 1, verses 18-21 (ESV):

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    You’ve basically said that you see no good reason to believe in a supernatural creation; however, God tells us here that what may be known about God is plain to you, because God has shown it to you “…in the things that have been made.” Who is right—you or God? I’ll go with God every time.

    The problem is that truths about God are spiritual truths. Because men are sinners, there is a spiritual aversion toward God—a rebellious resistance in the “inner man” toward God and spiritual truth. The spirit is the deepest part of a man, and until the spirit is willing to embrace God and spiritual truth, the mind will rationalize and resist. But God also tells us that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.” The Holy Spirit of God witnesses to the truth of the Word of God, and reveals with utter certainty that God and His Holy Scripture is true. This ability of God to communicate His truth with certainty is the only sure foundation for knowing truth. If you are unsure of that truth, the problem is that you are spiritually resisting it. In Jeremiah 29:13, God said, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.”

  7. “Your claim, “The ‘origins of the universe’ is a scientific question,” is a religious claim.”

    No, it’s not.

    “The denial of God and the supernatural acts of God are just as religious as the affirmations.”

    No, they aren’t.

    “You’ve basically said that you see no good reason to believe in a supernatural creation; however, God tells us here that what may be known about God is plain to you, because God has shown it to you “…in the things that have been made.” Who is right—you or God? I’ll go with God every time.”

    Your reason, “A book told me god said so!”, is a HORRIBLE REASON to believe anything. Not only is it not a good reason, it’s worse than a bad reason.

  8. Not a Scientist,

    Haha, what does that have to do with anything? You said that you don’t want to listen to non-scientists, yet AiG employs many scientists to talk about their respective fields. Instead of just spewing meaningless rhetoric, why don’t you just [edited] think critically instead of blindly accepting the status quo.

  9. Ken Hamrick says:

    @7 NotAScientist,

    You said, “Your reason, ‘A book told me god said so!’, is a HORRIBLE REASON to believe anything. Not only is it not a good reason, it’s worse than a bad reason.”

    On the contrary, my reason is that God revealed to me that the Book is true. And that is the BEST REASON to believe anything.

  10. revcort says:

    I have an atheist friend who basically tried to tell me that all faith is based on emotions and is, therefore, irrational. He was saying that the only reason any person ever comes to God or believes in God is because of some emotional reason, such as to avoid hell or because their families believe it and they want to be accepted or possibly even because they experienced some kind of emotion in some church service at some point that they interpreted as God working. My answer to him is that I’m sure there are people who latch onto religion for empty and emotion-based reasons, but that no person who has a genuine faith has arrived there based purely upon emotion. Rather, that person has experienced a miraculous creative work of God that has changed them at the deepest level of their existence. This is the same answer I would give “notascientist” here. It may seem irrational to you if you do not know God, but nothing could be more rational and sensible to me. Actually, the Bible says that the message of Jesus Christ and His Gospel will sound like foolishness to those who do not know God. So, it’s not surprising that my friend thinks I’ve been duped. It is expected.

  11. Ken Hamrick says:

    @10 Darryl,

    It seems to me that human beings have layers of consciousness. It seems to be uniquely human that we are able to—and habitually do—deceive ourselves to some degree. We tend to tailor our “reality” to suit us, some little and some much. Instead of always embracing the hard truth about everything, people tend to smooth the rough edges of life by ignoring certain things and exchanging the truth for a lie. It could be something as minor as choosing to believe that one is better looking than one actually is, or as major as a woman choosing to believe that her husband is still alive even though the police have already given her the bad news that his death was confirmed. Such a widow can refuse to believe the truth and consider it “nonsense” with some degree of genuineness, if she defensively buries the truth, hiding it from her more superficial layers of consciousness. But at the deepest layer, all men know the truth that they have refused to face, and they all comprehend the choosing of the self-deception.

    This actually comes out in debates with atheists whenever the atheist encounters superior arguments that confront him with the truth. As long as the atheist can maintain some semblance of having the higher ground of reason, he will act with scholarly superiority. But let his arguments be defeated on his own ground (reason), and he will react out of his true motivation (rebellion to God and His truth)—he will become irrational and emotional and resort to personal attack and rants.

Comments are closed.