The last four days has produced some moderate internet traffic to a YouTube video created by Bill Nye. In the video, Mr. Nye uses emoji’s found on iPhones to supposedly illustrate how macro-evolutionary processes work. Some people are finding this approach so fashionable that they’re describing it as “probably the best explanation of evolution ever.” Really?
I’ve watched the video a few times and could not resist posting about it. Let’s break it down, but first, watch the two minute video:
WOW! There are so many things that are wrong within just the first twenty five seconds but before I get to that let me say something about this little production. When one watches the video the first time they are probably listening to some of what he has to say. But the thing that really grabs one’s attention is the emoji figures. I suggest watching the video several times and then play it with your eyes shut. That’s funny, but it seems the emoji figures are there to disguise some serious misleading statements. Let’s look at them.
The first statement that should raise high the eyebrows of any person with a brain is when he says, “molecules just happen.” Is that so? Amazing! Let’s not be silly Mr. Nye. That premise right there does not provide sufficient evidence for me to base any kind theory or idea. Based on these first words by Mr. Nye, thinking people should immediately be skeptical. This notion of things “just happening” is simply an insufficient foundation for any kind of true science.
He goes on to say that, “somehow, probably with energy from the sun, these molecules hooked together and accidentally found ways to reproduce themselves.” Whoa!! There are three key words here that raise red flags when attempting to pass off facts: somehow, probably, and accidentally. To assert that something “somehow” did something implies an insufficient explanation to anything that follows. “Probably” implies uncertainty. “Accidentally” implies chance. To be sure, these words need not negatively apply to any and all ideas. The problem with using these words in this context is that Mr. Nye is attempting to pass off macro-evolution as a proven fact and using these kinds of words hardly helps his case.
Toward the conclusion of the video, Mr. Nye presents the most holy tenant of his religion: time. Theists are often accused of the “God of the Gaps” theory which says that we simply plug in God for things we cannot answer. That is not true. Theists, at least those of the Christian bend, base their belief in God on some very good evidence. On the other hand, Darwinism must use time in place of God as it’s own “God of the Gaps.” You see it often; if it can’t be explained away rationally let’s just throw in a few billion more years. All this does is beg the question. Time has never been shown to create anything. Sure Mr. Nye, lots of things can happen in 4.5 billion years. Maybe over the next 4.5 billion years it will be shown how ridiculous macro-evolution really is.
The underlying problem here for the Darwinist is the problem of abiogenesis, that is to say the idea of life arising from non-life. There is absolutely no evidence for naturalistic abiogenesis and saying that it “just happens” is absurd. This is the first tenant of faith for the worldview of Darwinism, which is unfortunate since Darwinism itself shouldn’t necessarily deal with abiogenesis, but the Naturalists insist. Empirical science tells us that nothing “accidentally” reproduces. We have always known reproduction to be a means to a specified end.
Moreover, while abiogenesis precedes supposed macro-evolution, the Anthropic Principle necessarily precedes abiogenesis. The Anthropic Principle is the term used to define the fine tuning of the universe in order for the possibility of life to occur. There are dozens and dozens of these cosmic characteristics that are required for life and more and more are being discovered all the time. For example, the tilt of Earth, the distance of Earth from our sun, the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, etc. These constants are so finely tuned that if they were altered by minuscule amounts, life as we know it would not exist.
Let’s be clear here. Bill Nye is talking about macro-evolution and NOT micro-evolution. The macro form says that fish can eventually develop wings and fly. The micro form says that changes can indeed occur within species such as the wide variety of dogs we see.
Theism and good science are not at odds. Let me repeat, theism and good science are not at odds. The problem is bad science. And when words and phrases like those used by Bill Nye are used to pass off supposed fact, we see bad science rearing its ugly head. By the way, the sexy argument I’m hearing these days against those who oppose macro-evolution are that those opposed “just don’t understand it.” This is an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when a person attacks his opposition rather than his opposition’s arguments. This type of argumentation should not be dignified with a response.
I know I’ve rambled a bit but these things need to be pointed out. In conclusion, I think theism offers a far more plausible foundation for abiogenesis and the propagation of life. There are many evidences such as the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, just to name two. Look into these things and maybe I’ll write about them soon. Thanks for reading.