The Creation Museum Responds to Bill Nye the Science Guy

Bill Nye recently made a wonderful video for Big Think in which he talked about why it was so important to accept evolution:

That video has received over 2,400,000 views as of this writing.

Now, the Creation Museum has made a response video.

Ken Ham prefaces it like this:

We are [responding to Nye] today with a video rebuttal featuring our “science guys” — Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom of our AiG and Creation Museum staff. These two PhD scientists were asked to reply to Mr. Nye, whose academic credentials do not come close to Drs. Menton and Purdom.

Never has a PhD mattered less.

Bill Nye has obviously done more for science education than the Creation Museum staff ever will, but they’re going to do whatever they can to indoctrinate people with nonsense because questioning a literal interpretation of the Bible isn’t an option for them:

Their entire argument goes as follows:

Menton: Creationists have brainwashed people in other countries, so there must be something to it!

Purdom: I teach my daughter evolution so she can weigh the evidence for herself! And you know I present it accurately.

Menton: Bill Nye said the world gets complicated if you don’t accept science… But learning more science hurts my head! So it must be false.

Purdom: We can’t see evolution happening right in front of our eyes, so why trust scientists who think they know how we were created? Trust the Bible!

Menton: Bill Nye says evolution is fundamental to all branches of science, but not all scientists have to know evolution to work in their fields… so why should we bother with it?!

Of course, like Ken Ham’s post, they’ve disabled comments on the video so that no one can embarrass the Creationists by presenting so-called “facts” and “evidence”…

But that doesn’t mean you can’t rip up their arguments on this website and everywhere else.

"> Where are we going to get a daily dose of intellectual dishonesty and pathetic ..."

In Honor of Christopher Hitchens, Six ..."
""You can't give a fetus personhood without taking it from the mother. That is never ..."

Here’s Why the Fertility Clinic “Dilemma” ..."
"At the trimesters when abortion is legal, that isn't a "baby" or an "unborn child." ..."

Here’s Why the Fertility Clinic “Dilemma” ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael

    We can’t see evolution happening in front of our eyes either. In fact both take faith, as events that made the Earth and organisms that inhabit occurred billions of years ago so neither side can be completely sure. I would say it is a good point that we can see evidence of a created universe. The preciseness of the great accident that is evolution: The perfect placement of earth and millions of other factors that if changed would eliminate the chance of life ever existing, the complexity of the living body and the many systems that coincide to keep it running that if one were to have occurred differently the body would fail, and the many other reasons that bring to the plate that their is a hunch to believing their is a greater reason to our world than an accident.

  • Michael

    or you are completely biased and unqualified to deem her fit to have a degree. I could claim Bill Nye should have his degree revoked but that would be inconsiderate and biased

  • Red

    I don’t think you understand what “intermediary species” means. All species that have previously existed are technically “intermediary species” from the first single celled organisms, to the current species in existence. There was never a time when one species gave birth to another, it is the constant build up of these “microevolutions” as you call it, that cause “macroevolution.” It is very similar to how Latin became French and Spanish. Was there ever a time when a Latin speaker gave birth to a Spanish or French speaker? Or was there one generation that spoke an “intermediary” language? This questions are of course redundant because those languages, just like species, changed over long periods of time with many small changes added up to a larger change.

  • Devin Everaert

    There is insane amounts of proof for evolution your confirmation bias just prevents you from seeing it. Gravity and cells are just a theory, so are atoms, and the three of those mind as well be fact. When you only resource is on book that is two thousand years old it doesn’t matter how many years you spend on research.

  • Devin Everaert
  • Ralph A Jansen

    There is no observable progression. If you were alive to watch the progression, then there would be an obvious observable progression. But saying that it appears, if we line up fossils like this, that there is progression, that is a fantasy. It is an interpretation built out of assumptions of a pattern that DOES NOT EXIST, no matter how much we want it to exist. Just because it appears there is a pattern, doesn’t mean there is a pattern. The only way to know for sure is to actually observe it, and this has NEVER been done. Hence the many changes to the “theory” all the time. We used to believe that this here fossilized animal evolved into this animal, but we now know that is not true, it went in this direction instead. That is just another assumption that is not based on reality, but on a fantasy. The theory of gravity doesn’t change like that? Why not? Well, gravity is observable and testable in the here and now. Same with the Laws of Thermodynamics. They can be observed and tested now. There is no progression.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Because we observe insects and bugs only reproducing as insects and bugs. You never observe an insect giving birth to cats or dogs. It is always bugs. Science is based on what we observe, and because this is all we observe, then we can say bugs are only bugs, always will be bugs, and nothing more.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    As I’m sure you’re well aware, and as TCC has explained anyway, no evolutionary biologist expects an insect to give birth to a cat, or an orangutan to a human. If all you’ve got is that ridiculously stupid strawman, I don’t have time for it. Carry on spewing your ignorant version of evolution which has nothing to do with reality. This is an old thread, so it doesn’t really matter.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    So there is no actual directly observable evidence or proof of evolution? Typical.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    There is no proof of macroevolution. If it cannot be observed, it is not scientific. No one has ever observed macroevolution in action, so therefore a lot of faith is involved. Macro evolution becomes more unlikely as we discover just how complicated the universe and nature really is.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Actually, they call it adaptation, which does occur. But (no matter what your family pet thinks), cats did not evolve from dogs, so this is no basis for thinking cats are superior.

  • TCC

    Right, because cats and dogs come from entirely different families (Felidae and Canidae, respectively). It would be nice if you could leave at least one comment that doesn’t wildly mischaracterize evolutionary biology.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    So you don’t believe that life started as a single cell and then after millions… (and billions) of years you have humans, apes, fish, etc. Okay, I apologize for misunderstanding.

  • TCC

    You’re doing a smashing job of maintaining your perfect track record of mischaracterization.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    So where did you see an Orangutan give birth to a man?

  • TCC

    That question is more readily answered by you having a complete grasp on what evolution is first.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Why would one need a complete grasp on what evolution is, if there is no one on earth who has a complete grasp on what evolution is? (If you say you do, explain abiogenesis and give an example of this happening today.) At least Creation gives a full answer. **Note I don’t believe either creation or evolution is science, though I believe what we see today is much better explained by an intelligence being behind all that is. Since creation cannot be observed (or evolution for that matter) it is not science. Adaptation or small changes within an organism are normal occurrences, but bacteria are always reproduce as bacteria, bugs as bugs, birds as birds, etc. There is no directly observable events in nature that shows anything different.

  • TCC

    You don’t even show the slightest understanding and have made monumental errors in your depiction of evolutionary theory. If you want to properly attack a theory, at least know what it claims. All you’re beating down are strawmen of cats becoming dogs and orangutans birthing humans.

    Also, abiogenesis ≠ evolution. Please remember this.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    I don’t say that abiogenesis = evolution, but the life has to come from somewhere. Without abiogenesis you cannot have evolution. If one fails, so fails the other, for then you have to have intelligent design…

  • TCC

    Abiogenesis, while not fully empirically verified, has not by any means been ruled impossible, and intelligent design has not a shred of actual evidence in its favor, so at worst, it’s a draw and we can only claim ignorance.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Actually, I recall an experiment (yay science) that shows that abiogenesis does not occur. The fact that you say that this experiment is wrong, though it was completely scientific, surprises me. (Though not as much as you might think). Intelligent Design has A LOT in favor of it. (Note, I did not say creation, or the religious side of it. I speak only of an intelligence having made the design that is seen throughout the whole universe. That is actually the best evidence. Design can be directly observed…)
    So, if you actually researched the Intelligent Design position, perhaps you wouldn’t argue from ignorance so much.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    The problem is that true science requires observation of these events. If it cannot be observed, then it is not scientific. One is able to invent fairy tales all day long, because no one is alive, or ever lived who could disprove it. Hence the rescue tactic of time. You just have to accept it happened, even though no one can show you where, not to mention how.

  • TCC

    That is blatantly false; science often works with observations of past events, working from current models and drawing inferences based on the available data. And we have the mechanisms at play in evolution and have seen them at work.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Cool, make me a cat from this dog. (Sorry, explaining mechanisms that cannot be observed in nature. It is also an exaggeration to get straight to the point.) Science has often been wrong when dealing with observations of past eents. Current models of anything are woefully inadequate as there are many, many variables that are not taken into account, that may be very much involved in what we see in the world. Just look at global warming where those who worship global warming have done their best to make the medieval warm period disappear, as well as the little ice age. It doesn’t take much to taint any part of science. (Especially when there is over $3 trillion dollars at stake.)

  • TCC

    The funny part is that if I did what you want me to – to produce a dog from a cat (which is nonsensical given how evolution works) – you would accuse me of artificial selection and say it wasn’t evolution.

    It’s also amusing that you deny global warming as well. Crank magnetism at its best worst.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    First of all, the global warming craze is all about control and money. There is an over $3 trillion dollar market for global warming. That is if it can be proven that carbon causes global warming and is a dangerous toxin that needs to be controlled, or better yet, eliminated completely from the atmosphere. The carbon tax market is over $3 trillion, and is based in…well, Chicago. You will notice that global warming is completely unfalsifiable. If it is hot, it is because of global warming and proves global warming. If it is cold, that is just part of the global warming process and proves global warming. Even this 17+ year stalling of climate change does not disprove global warming. (Even though they said at first if the temperature doesn’t change for 10 years then global warming is false. Then it became 12 years, then 15 years, and then 17 years. (I have read quite a bit on the subject.) Even the IPCC has had to say there has been no increase.
    Perhaps if you recall those hackers who hacked the college systems and pulled up the emails written by global warming advocates who basically said they were using bad data in the models. Everyone seems to have forgotten the huge repository of email the hackers pulled that said that global warming was a hoax.) They also tore into the program for one of the models and found out that no matter what data they input, they got garbage out. They then found out that there was data already embedded in the code that changed the inputs. When the additional data was removed, one saw a completely different graph that did not match the one’s scientists put out. The code that was changed to give proper output falsified all the data put into the model. How is that for ethics in academia?

  • TCC

    Conspiracy theory – check.
    Strawmen (weather proves climate change) – check
    Pulling up false scandals (Climategate) – check.

    This is all long-debunked nonsense. Please update your talking points.

  • ModVAVet

    ZOMG, atoms must not really exist, since we can’t directly observe them! HERPADERPADERP.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    You do not exist because I cannot directly observe you. Also, your intelligence is not observable, so it must not exist. They can be and have been directly observed. Your information must be old.

  • ModVAVet

    Nope. Only via electron bombardment. No direct observation. Sorry.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Evolution is mythology enough…

  • TCC

    Are you about done with your game of “I know you are, but what am I?” You seem a bit old for that tactic.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    True. I should remember the adage that says not to argue with a fool, or they will drag you down to their level. I kind of responded with the timbre of the whole comment section, which is basically ad hominem, with little useful data.

  • TCC

    “Little useful data” should be your handle. As I’ve said in repeated comments, you haven’t given a valid objection to evolution yet because you lack even a basic understanding of it (and seem to think that you don’t even need to understand it to criticize it, which is a bizarre and entirely dishonest way to approach any intellectual subject).

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Actually logic is what is needed to approach any intellectual subject, or it isn’t intellectual.

  • TCC

    I’d like to know in what possible world that is an actual response to what I said. Could you point me to where I said that logic was unnecessary?

  • Ralph A Jansen

    I did not say that logic is unnecessary, I said it is required for intellectual discussion. You seem to believe that logic is not necessary for an intellectual discussion, though reason (hence logic) is what makes a discussion intellectual.

  • TCC

    FFS, reading comprehension, please. I asked you to show me where I denied the necessity of logic; you then took that as a claim that you said that (I never said any such thing) and then repeated your lie about me saying (although now you’ve backed off to merely implying) that logic is not necessary. In fact, I said (well, implied) that an understanding of a subject is a useful part of an intellectual discussion, since you seem to be under the impression that it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize a complex scientific theory with virtually no real knowledge of it. Logic is of course a requisite part of the discussion, which unfortunately you seem to be quite deficient in as well.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Question. If I don’t believe in evolution, am I going to die? Is something horrible going to happen to me? Will planes cease to fly if evolution is false? Will light bulbs cease to function if chimpanzees didn’t evolve from our “ancestor” (as to be a common ancestor)? Will microwaves stop heating up food? Will my computer stop working if dinosaurs were alive 5000 years ago? If evolution doesn’t have any effect on our lives, why do we have to be indoctrinated?

  • Matthew Baker

    Antibiotic resistant bacteria, the need for annual flu shots, HIV and it treatments, modern drug development, agricultural pests and their resistance and susceptibility to pesticides, and the fields of genetics, conservation, forensics, animal husbandry, modern software development, bioinformatics, all require and benefit from an understanding of evolution.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    I believe they happen to coincide. Adaptation is exactly the same thing, and does not have anything to do with common ancestry or the development of life. Bacteria are still bacteria, viruses are still viruses, there is no change from one kind to another. No Darwinian change that has resulted in one cell organisms developing into everything that is here today. (Through multiple paths of common ancestry…) Evolutionary thought (outside of adaptation or the so coined “micro evolution”) is not required and does not benefit such studies. An understanding of adaptation, however, does. Also an understanding of genetics. Most of the things created through a believed understanding of evolution is slowly killing us. (Genetically modified foods.) apparently a greater intelligence then our own is necessary to get it right? (Not to mention medications that have death as a side effect.)

  • Matthew Baker
  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Does knowing the Earth goes around the sun affect your life in any way? No. It sure does affect our understanding of the universe, though, which affects all sorts of things in future-tech that may have space-based applications. In our life right now, though, heliocentrism is “useless knowledge”. Should we allow children to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth just because it doesn’t break our stuff if they do? Or should we endeavor to teach them an accurate accounting of the universe, so they can take that knowledge and build upon it?

    If people stop thinking evolution is real, millions are at risk from disease and starvation. I’d call that a pretty good pragmatic reason to not teach 2,000 year old myths as reality.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Yet they teach that evolution myth. If one is not allowed to question science, is it science at all? Sounds more like indoctrinating someone into a belief system than science.

  • TCC

    1. There is no definition of “myth” that applies to evolution.
    2. Evolution is questioned on a regular basis.
    3. That is not the purpose of the science classroom, which is to accurately define the methodology and existing knowledge of the discipline.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    1. It is based on assumption and interpretation, as mythology is. (Hmm. Lightning. It had to come from somewhere. Perhaps a god. That would explain why it is so dangerous, strikes people and objects. The gods are angry. An interpretation and assumption.
    2. That is news to me. There is plenty of ad hominem launched at those who question…
    3. Since evolution (The natural selection common ancestor stuff) is not observable, it is not a proper way to teach science, which is about observation and experimentation. It doesn’t eve teach a proper method of thought, for just because one believes a pattern is present, or something has to like to something else, does not mean it does. The way science was taught to us did not teach evolution, or creation. It just taught the scientific method and how to observe the world to expand knowledge. Any of these could give you a rocket scientist, a computer scientist, or any “operational science” scientist. (Such as Bill Nye using his only earned degree (BS in Mechanical Engineering) to invent things and patent them. Evolutionary type science does nothing in such an arena. (Where intelligence is required to make or invent things.)

  • TCC

    Mythology does not mean “a claim based on assumption and interpretation.” More importantly, evolution has made a large number of testable claims that have been verified using genomics, morphology, etc. Myths are unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Ergo, not the same thing.

    Since evolution (The natural selection common ancestor stuff) is not observable, it is not a proper way to teach science, which is about observation and experimentation.

    No matter how many times you pull out this card, it will not simply become true.

    It doesn’t eve teach a proper method of thought, for just because one believes a pattern is present, or something has to like to something else, does not mean it does.

    Evolution does not simply mean “there is a pattern of change”; evolutionary theory has discovered a variety of different mechanisms (natural selection, sex selection, genetic drift, etc.) that explain and predict the changes we have seen. There’s a reason that discoveries like Tiktaalik were so monumental – they had been predicted. What accurate predictions has creationism made as a competing theory? None.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Actually, evolution is unfalsifiable, and because it cannot be directly observed in nature, unverifiable. Mythology right? Adaptation is completely acceptable, cats to dogs (it is an exaggeration of one kind becoming another. Quick and dirty, no waste of millions of years for this argument.) You see cats are smarter then dogs, so in the world of pets, cats must have come after dogs…
    Okay, I accept that it is true that observation is alien to the world of science. Observation is not a requirement to call anything science. (I stopped pulling out my untrue card that says that observation is required to have science…are you happy now. Or do you realize that you have your own strawman? I was taught that science is about observation, assumption, hypothesis, experimentation, and evaluation. I understand now that this is not the case, for if such were the case, then it would be falsifiable. My apologies for the mistake.
    As for your question about accurate predictions by creationism…there are some so you are being disingenuous. (Or is that dogmatic?)

  • TCC

    evolution is unfalsifiable

    Not true at all. If you found a Precambrian rabbit, that would be pretty strong evidence against evolutionary theory. There are a large number of other possibilities for how evolution could be falsified, in fact.

    because it cannot be directly observed in nature, unverifiable

    Do you remember what I said about predictions? That is verification.

    Adaptation is completely acceptable, cats to dogs

    What you fail to grasp is while it might be possible for a felid to evolve into a canid, not every evolutionary path is inevitable, and we don’t see that kind of leap in evidence. If we did, it would mean some shaking up within our understanding of evolution.

    I was taught that science is about observation, assumption

    Assumption? But above, you said that was a mark of mythology! Sounds like you must have your wires crossed.

    As for your question about accurate predictions by creationism…there are some so you are being disingenuous. (Or is that dogmatic?)

    Go on, then, give us just one. This should be fun to see.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    So, what about the fig wasp that apparently existed over 65 million years before figs? These wasps require figs in order to reproduce. How does one reconcile that evolution for the longest time has taught that figs and fig wasps evolved together? All I have seen in what I have read are safety devices. Nothing that can actually be observed, therefore this is what must have happened. You cannot disprove it because there is no evidence that a substitute for figs did not exist at the time. This had to be what happened to explain how the wasps existed in modern form, 65 million years before figs.
    They predicted strongly the possibility that radioactive dating is not accurate. As a result, they were right, and the form of dating that showed the greatest disparity is no longer used. If no one said anything, this absolutely inaccurate test would still be used and accepted as correct.

  • TCC

    So, what about the fig wasp that apparently existed over 65 million years before figs?

    Even if you forget all of the other possible explanations (e.g. convergent evolution), all that the find can conclusively tell us is 1) a member of Chalcidoidea lived 115 million years ago and 2) it has an ovipositor that resembles those in modern members of the superfamily. It isn’t at all like the Precambrian rabbit example I gave; at worst, it might mean that the coevolution of fig trees and fig wasps is wrong. That’s not a smashing blow to evolution (which explains why I had to dig to find it at all).

    They predicted strongly the possibility that radioactive dating is not accurate.

    1. Who?
    2. Saying that radiometric dating is not accurate is false. If one form was inaccurate and no longer used, that doesn’t mean that radiometric dating as a whole is inaccurate.
    3. Radiometric dating is not the only measure used.
    4. That’s not a prediction of creationism, unless you only mean creationism to denote anti-evolutionism. That doesn’t put it on equal footing with evolution, which is what I suspect you want.

  • ModVAVet

    You get hammered here and elsewhere because….

    1) You make statements about how evolution works that do not accurately, or even closely, reflect how evolution works (but they are pushed heavily by people like Ken Ham), and…

    2) We get tired of answering the same questions, over and over and over. This country (USA) is somewhere around 80% Christian, and some 40% are staunch creationists. Most of us have put up with your sorts of ‘questions’ for years upon years.

    I’m going to help you out a bit here, and I hope you read these things.

    http://biologos.org/blog/speciation-and-macroevolution

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VBDefiningSpeciation.shtml

    http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evolutionary-ideas-species-and-speciation.html

    http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

  • Ralph A Jansen

    I may read them…again, not sure how that would help.

  • ModVAVet

    By correcting some misconceptions that you appear to be stricken with, brother. Read, and learn! :)

  • ModVAVet

    I should note, too, that evolution is highly important to the formulation of antibiotics and vaccines. It does, quite directly, impact your life.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Actually it is teaching children how to think, not what to think. How to think is intelligence and rationality. What to think is indoctrination used by cults and other religious organizations. Asking to present alternatives that run contrary to say, evolution stimulates thought. Not permitting any opposition stifles thought and is probably why our education system is so backward and falling apart.

  • TCC

    Creationism does not tell children how to think; it tells them to trust this ancient text that everything was created just the way it is and that they must make all of their answers conform to this conclusion. Evolution can be explained through a variety of scientific subdisciplines and is one of the most well-attested scientific theories in existence. There is no equivalence here.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    The idea of teaching both is to present opposition to evolution, which stimulates discussion and debate. This teaches children how to think, and how to use logic. I guess you went to a school that didn’t teach one how to think, just to tote the line? All the scientific evidence is assumption and interpretation. It doesn’t hold water, hence opposition. Is it science to avoid anything that questions a theory? I thought science was all about debate? Apparently not.

  • TCC

    FFS, the expression is “toe the line.”

    Frankly, I don’t think you can speak much to teaching children how to think, since you have repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding about what evolutionary biology actually claims. As such, it’s pretty rich to hear you saying, “But why won’t you teach both and let the kids decide?” You haven’t even learned about evolution properly to know if the “opposition” to it is actually sound.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Wait, I never…NEVER said “Why won’t you teach both sides and let the kids decide?” That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. The idea of teaching both is to present opposition to evolution. I shortened what I meant believing you would understand. The point is not the teaching of religion, but of the points that oppose evolution. If you are afraid that evolution would be defeated to easily, then perhaps we should not present any opposition. It would be a shame to not perpetuate a lie, and teach such lies to students. The idea is to teach students HOW to think (logic, thinking for themselves) instead of indoctrinating them like a cult leader. I understand if you do not support this and would rather have a robot then a rational thinking person. (Okay…no I don’t…)

  • TCC

    There is no competing scientific theory to evolution – you yourself have admitted that creationism is not science. So what is the “other side” to teach? It can’t merely be anti-evolutionism; that isn’t a competing theory at all. What you don’t seem to understand is that evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested and confirmed by various scientific subdisciplines, and to introduce “opposition” would be to inject non-science into the science classroom and to confuse the issues entirely. This nonsense of “indoctrination” is mere projection, nothing more.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    And they don’t know any evolutionists who budge an inch no matter how much fact is presented. So, there seems to be a similarity there. Dogmatic, religious. Neither are science, both are religions.

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Hence commercials about natural museums that say the same thing?

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Actually he only “has” a BS in mechanical engineering. Everything else is honorary…

  • Ralph A Jansen

    Generally it is because most of the arguments presented in comment sections are ad hominem and add absolutely nothing to intelligent discourse. Just read some of the comments here to see that nothing is added to intelligent discourse.