An Associated Press article on Bill Nye “The Science Guy” of TV and his anti-creationist video has been making the rounds in secular and Christian media across the country.

Here is an example of this syndicated AP article, which featured excerpts of an interview with Nye, as it appeared in the media.

The reporter wrote his article as a follow up to the YouTube video of Bill Nye titled, “Creationism is not appropriate for children,” that received millions of views.

(See my YouTube replies, Ken Ham Responds to Bill Nye “The Humanist Guy” and Ken Ham Responds to Intolerant Bill Nye Defenders.)

The AP reporter called me to obtain quotes for this article. One of the points I made to the reporter (which did not make it into the article) is a challenge I have for Bill Nye.

First, the AP article quotes Nye as saying the following:

If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate.

So, here is my challenge (one that I gave to the reporter a few times). I want Bill Nye to name one invention—one piece of technology—that would not have been able to be invented without the inventor believing in evolution. Just name one!

Usually, when I have challenged an evolutionist to come up with one example of something invented for mankind that would not be possible without accepting evolution, I get the following response: “Understanding resistance in bacteria and thus being able to invent drugs.”

But as we have written on our website many times before, antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. Whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, a researcher can observe the resistance and even understand issues of mutations and other things that can cause the resistance. Such research is dealing with observational science.

Sometimes evolutionists have claimed we wouldn’t understand diseases (like the flu virus) and development of vaccines without evolution! But it has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution! Both creationists and evolutionists can do the same research as this involves observational science. For instance, here are a few links to articles dealing with bird flu.

evolution

evolution

I challenge Bill Nye—to name one thing, one invention that would not be possible without believing in molecules-to-man. Tell me one way a belief inhas contributed to innovation and developed our technology. Did the Apple company use evolutionary beliefs in developing its software and computers? (Though some people may think so with the latest iPhone operating system and its problems. :-))

It’s interesting to note that I’ve heard secularists bemoan the bad science scores among students in America—and they blame creationists! Yet, creation has by and large been thrown out of the public school system, while molecules-to-man evolution has been taught as fact.

Why should he be worried at all about current and future generations being able to come up with innovation in technology? After all, he says evolution is the foundation for it all to happen.

Well, millions of public school students, for generations now, have been taught evolution as fact through their education system. By and large they aren’t even allowed to hear about creation. These students have been taught molecules-to-man evolution as fact!

So, from what Bill Nye has claimed about the importance of evolution to innovation and inventions, we should be seeing these students producing new inventions with incredible innovation and on an increasing scale. Nye shouldn’t have to worry about innovation in the future, because evolution has been and is being taught as fact to generations of students in America.

But Bill—where is all this evolution-based innovation? Show me! Why are you even worried? You shouldn’t be worried at all, for evolution is being taught as you want. You should be able to sit back and enjoy all the new innovation!

So again, name an invention—name just one that would not be possible if a scientist didn’t believe in molecules-to-man evolution! And as I said, don’t come up with something that has to do with observational science conducted in the present that we can all agree on—evolutionist or creationist—as we observe it.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken