I like Bill Nye. We
have watched his “Science Guy” videos for years and have learned much from
them. Who doesn’t love the hardboiled
egg analogy or the “Blood Steam” song.
Recently, Nye made a video for "Big Think" called “Mama, Don’t Let Your
Babies Grow Up to Deny Evolution.” http://bigthink.com/users/bill-nye.
Many have commented on the content. For example, Dr. David Menton, PhD Biology,
Brown University, and Dr. Gerogie Perdom PhD Molecular Genetics, Ohio State
University from “Creation Museum” produced a video answering some of the claims
in the Nye video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA). Again, I like Bill Nye and I don’t mind if he
disagrees with me or anyone, but I was saddened to see how well he presented
such uncritical arguments. I think he
can do much better.
I am not a scientist so I will not address the science content
of Nye’s video, however, I would like to support my claim that his arguments were
less than critical with the following examples.
Bill Nye says that when people claim to not believe in
evolution, his response is the following.
“Why not? Your world
becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. I mean here are these ancient dinosaur bones
or fossils. Here is radioactivity. Here are distant stars that are just like our
star but are at a different point in their life cycle. The idea of deep time. The idea of billions of years explains so
much of the world around us. If you try
to ignore that, your worldview just becomes crazy untenable…itself inconsistent.”
He says this beautifully. He says it with confidence and
authority. However, as pretty as it is, this
response is a combination of at least two fallacies. The first is a fallacy of simple
ambiguity. Mr. Nye seems to have a very
narrow view of what it means to not believe in evolution. His comments seem directed specifically
toward young earth creationists. He
offers four arguments against “creationism” and each argument is connected with time – “dinosaur
bones or fossils…radioactivity…distant stars and deep time.” There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with
young earth creationists or attempting to refute their beliefs. However,
the term “Creationism” does not necessarily mean “Young Earth Creationism”. It
includes that view, but the position is actually much more complicated. A man of Bill Nye’s education and confident voice
should know that before speaking authoritatively on the topic.
The second fallacy is the fallacy of composition. This fallacy assumes that what is true or
untrue of the parts must necessarily be true or untrue of the whole. In this case Mr. Nye assumes that if he can
counter young earth creationism (the success of his arguments is questionable),
then he has countered all creationist views.
On the surface, this is clearly not the case. The creationist worldview is simply more complicated than
Nye assumes. The mistake here is that he
seems unaware that there is more than one species of creationist. There are at least two other genus. There is “Old Earth Creationism”, sometimes
called “Progressive Creationism”. There
is “Fully Gifted Creationism”, sometimes called “Theistic Evolution”. Within these worldviews there are also more nuances. My point is that by attempting to refute
young creationism, many aspects of old earth creationism or theistic evolution are
not even touched. Then having used a
couple of pithy statements to not fully address the issue at hand, Nye dresses
this poor logic up in a serious, confident face and authoritative voice, claims
victory and goes on to advise parents not to make their children believe in the
views he has not refuted. As a scientist
and teacher he should, and I am sure he does, know that arguments are more complex
than he presented them and often need many qualifiers.
At the end of his video Bill Nye advised parents not to make
their children believe in creationism, “…because we need scientifically
literate voters and tax payers. We need
engineers that can build stuff (Minor point:
Engineers do not build stuff, they design stuff.) and solve problems.” This is simply a non sequitur – it doesn’t
follow. His argument assumes that belief
in divine creation precludes critical thinking, literacy and the ability to do
engineering. This is clearly not the
case. To refute an argument like this,
only a single counter example needs to be presented. I am sure there are many but I can offer the
first hand example of myself. I am
currently a missionary in Odessa.
However, for eleven years I worked as a computer draftsmen and then an
engineer. As an engineer I was paid well
for my designs. Most everything I
designed was built and served its purpose or is still standing today. The kicker is that I am currently a
creationist and I was a creationist while I was an engineer. I also have been and currently am an active voter. I may not agree with Mr. Nye’s politics, but
I read the positions of the candidates (I am literate), read the propositions, listen
to the debates and make the best choice I can.
Finally, I am sure that the government is more than happy to take tax
money from literate, illiterate, creationists and evolutionists alike. If illiteracy was an excuse for not paying
taxes, I am sure that many of our most financially successful people would
suddenly lose the ability to read.
As I watched the video, it was obvious that it is well shot,
edited and nicely produced. It is clear
that some thought and work went into it.
I don’t know if Nye’s thoughts were scripted or he just thought, spoke on the topic and then edited it together later. Either way, there was some thought and work
put into this production. If this were
an impromptu interview, we could almost excuse Nye’s poor logic, but it is
clear that some preparation was put into the production of this video. A man of Nye’s education and experience should
know better than to not do his homework when speaking as an authority. He was speaking against a worldview without
really understanding the complexities of the world view. When I took debate in college (yep went to
college), my professor said that the first rule of debate is “know your
opponents position.” Nye does not understand
the complexity of his opponent’s position.
This much is clear.
In conclusion, I would like to use some of Mr. Nye’s last
argument as a counter argument. In the
end I agree that in the US we need literate voters, tax payers and good
engineers. However, in my view, these
qualities are more connected with the ability to think critically than with a
belief in creationism or evolution. I
would charge parents to teach their children to think critically and reason
well in opposition to the way Nye reasons in his video. This is not an attack on Bill Nye. I did not say that he cannot reason well and think
critically – actually I am convinced that he can. What I am saying is that he did not reason
well in this video. This is too bad,
because if a man of Nye’s intellect and knowledge were indeed to look into the
claims and arguments of the various families of creationists, I think he would
find a rich milieu for debate and lively intellectual interaction.
(Rebuttal warning: If
you say, “Nye is a scientist, not an expert on the Bible or religion or
creationism or philosophy or logic.” My response
will be something like, “If that is so, then why does he feel the freedom to
speak authoritatively on the topic. This
is not a false dilemma. Either he did
not do his homework or is speaking as an expert where he has no expertise or he
is ignorant of his lack of expertise. In
any of these circumstances, he should not be giving advice to parents.”)
