In both of the videos, Bill Nye’s primary concern is that creationism possess a threat to scientific
advancement, specifically in the realm of biology. Evolution acts as a building block upon which all fields
develop and progress. Rejecting this block ensures stagnation within these fields as their fundamental
principles no longer correlate with new discoveries and proposals. Oftentimes, the rejection of evolution
is due to religious beliefs. The continuation of religion, Bill reasons, ensures the end of science as
students will no longer have the knowledge or passion necessary to drive advancement.
His primary assumption lies in the belief that creationism cannot fill the role of evolution.
Evolution teaches and provides facts that are critical to any development. Because creationism rejects
evolution’s primary principles, it fails to provide a similar platform; however, this assumption is primarily
supported by personal belief rather than empirical and evidentiary support. While watching the video, a
viewer may notice that Nye cites no study stating that Christians are less productive than atheists. In
addition, there are multiple times when he contradicts his stated thesis. The most glaring example is
found in the introduction of the first video.
Nye states that America is the most productive and innovative country in the world, yet at the
same time, it is the most religious. If his statement is true that religion stifles scientific achievement, why
would America be ranked as the most advanced nation? According to his logic, America should be ranked
last.
There are several responses to Bill’s argument. Perhaps the most blatant is determining whether
or not evolution is, indeed, critical to innovation. The video fails to provide a single instance or example
where evolution is necessary for progress. In fact, the opposite holds true. Progress can occur with or
without evolution.
What Bill fails to appreciate is that there are two distinct categories of scientific inquiry:
historical and operational science. Historical science is primary concerned with the past, and operational
is concerned with the present (Mitchell, 2014). Innovative fields primarily deal with operational science
as they attempt to look forward and deal with present issues. Nye never presents a warranted argument
as to why a historical science, such as evolution, interacts and progresses these fields. It seems that even
if religious individuals believe in an incorrect historical science they should still be able to engage in
progressive fields.
Furthermore, creationism may provide the means and motivation to further a scientific passion.
If the world were created by an all-powerful Creator, it would only stand that individuals would seek to
become closer to their Creator through exploring and learning creation. Within this world, science
adopts a more emotional aspect as scientists study the world in order to understand the character of
God. Hence, creationism not only fulfills the role of evolution, but it is also a better means to an end.
References
Mitchell, Elizabeth. (2014, June 12). Does Religion Cripple Science Innovation?. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/does-religion-cripple-science-innovation/
