A recent issue of The Sun News (Sept. 25, Page 2A) boldly touted the headline “Nye: Creation views threaten U.S. science.” This retiree from a long career in the applied science will provide scientific references that refute the claims of “Nye: The Science Guy.”
Nye’s claims that creationists threaten science is utterly preposterous since, as British scientist Robert Clark said, “Sustained scientific development has only occurred in the Christian culture.” In all other cultures: Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, etc., science developed to a certain point and then stopped. Therefore, empirical science was discovered and developed by these brilliant, Bible-believing Christians. I’ll just name a few of the pioneers of real science: Francis Bacon, Johnnes Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, and Michael Faraday. It begs the question: Why should Bill Nye fear creationists since creationists discovered and developed sicence? A course in the history of science is recommended for those who share Nye’s opinion..
In 1993, University of Georgia’s chemistry professor Dr. Wesley Allen supplied five answers to the “Why” did sustained scientific development occur first in the Christian environment? I’ll just list No. 4, a short answer. “If Christianity is true, mankind, formed in the image of God, can discover order in the universe by rational interpretation. That is, the codes of nature can be unveiled and read. Without such faith, science might never have developed, because it might have appeared impossible in principle.”
Now back to The Sun News’ headline with emphasis on creationist/Christian views threatening U.S. science. Like most articles regarding evolution, the term “evolution” was not defined thus providing the authors a lot of running room on the field of scientific discourse. Defining terms is a must in science to avoid ambiguity and “bait and switch,” a tactic often used in debates by evolutionists.. Recently, a politician was asked why he changed his position regarding an important national issue. His answer to the reporter made big news. He said, “My position did not change, it ‘evolved.’ ” To cut to the chase, the only “evolution” being questioned by creationists (or anyone) is molecules-to-man evolution series.
Now, how can any self respecting biology teacher living in South Carolina or elsewhere be expected to teach Darwinism’s lifeless chemicals-to-man evolution as a fact of science. World-famous evolutionary biologist professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard told the assembled scientists of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science that Darwin’s lifeless chemicals-to-man evolution must rest upon faith in a story.
If you think I’m using hyperbole, check out Scientific American, July 2000, page 80. This deserves some explanation. Professor Mayr told the scientists: “Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” Bottom line, Darwin’s theory of evolution (defined above) must, like the creation story, rest on faith in a story.
Last but not least. The National Academy Press published a guidebook for science teachers, “Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science” (1998). Chapter 3 opens with a clear definition of what science is, and, is not: “Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science.” Evolutionist professors protect their so-called scientific turf and do not inform their students that the scientific method (observation, testing and reporting) is not applicable to unique events like the origin of life or Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution theory. Bottom line, try to apply the academy’s definition to biology and it works, therefore biology is true science. But try to apply the definition to unique events like Darwinian evolution theory or creation and it is powerless. Both remain faith-based-beliefs and neither one can be evaluated experimentally.
The writer lives in Murrells Inlet.