Lux Lucet

This week’s installment o f our series on Bill Nye continues our review of Chapter 2 of his book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation.

Bill Nye Asserts The Consequent

Suppose for a moment we were having a conversation about my car and I said to you, “If my battery’s dead, my car won’t start.” “Okay,” you replied, “that makes sense.”

So we go out to my driveway; I hop in and try to crank the engine. Nothing happens.

“Alright,” I say, “obviously this is scientific proof that my battery’s dead!”

What would you say about my logic? Well, if you had any sort of mechanical background, or had just a little bit of training in logic, you’d probably point out to me that I was jumping to conclusions. You might say something like, “Not so fast there, Steve. Sure, your battery may be dead, but there are many other explanations why your car won’t start. Maybe you didn’t check your oil and your engine’s locked up (I had this happen once), or maybe your ignition switch is broken. You could have a bad battery cable. In fact, there are probably dozens of reason why your car won’t start that have nothing do with a dead battery. Don’t you think you’re getting ahead of yourself by claiming you know your battery’s dead?”

This little story illustrates a common logical fallacy called asserting the consequent. This fallacy is the result of the misuse of a form of argument called the hypothetical argument. In my illustration above, you can easily spot where I go wrong in my thinking. I conclude that my battery is dead, even though there are many other reasons that can just as easily explain why my car won’t start.

But here’s the shocking part: the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent is foundational to the scientific method. That’s right. All the supposed great “truths” discovered by science, the very ones that Bill Nye and others like to use to try to intimidate Christians, are built, as it were, on the logical equivalent of quicksand.

On pages 14 and 15, Nye attempts to solidify the invincible logical rigor of science by providing the reader with an example of a successful prediction made by science. In Nye’s mind, this example illustrates the validity of science, but all it really does is underscore his own poor reasoning skills.

Nye relates the story of a University of Chicago scientists who, reasoning that there must exist the fossil of an animal showing the transition between fish and land animals, led a an expedition to an area in northeastern Canada where he thought he would find what he was looking for. As it turned out, the expected fossil was found leading Nye to claim that this is sound science, because the scientist’s prediction of the fossil turned out to be true.

The hypothesis the scientist used to make his prediction is left unstated by Nye, but it probably ran something like this: If land animals evolved from fish, then I should be able to find the fossil of an animal in such and such a place that has features of both fish and land animals. Eureka! I did, in fact, find the fossil of such an animal in the place where I expected, therefore it is true that land animals evolved from fish.

This argument is in the same form as my example above about my car and the dead battery. There could be any number of reasons why the fossil – the name of the fossil in question is the Tiktaalik – was found where it was that have nothing to do with the professor’s particular hypothesis or even, more generally, evolution.

It’s remarkable how smart people like Bill Nye can be so easily misled that they mistaken obvious logical fallacies for the truth. Worth noting is that the Bible itself predicts Nye’s fallacious thinking, giving as the reason for it the fact that men, in their unrighteousness, suppress their innate knowledge of God. And refusing to acknowledge God, they will move heaven and earth to drive him from their conscience by erecting their own intellectual constructs, however full or logical errors they may be. The world calls this sort of humanistic reasoning wisdom. But God calls it foolishness.

Nye The Fashionable Feminist

So far as I have been able to tell, the text of Nye’s book contains not one use of the word “God.” This is true even in Chapter 2 where Nye discusses his debate with Ken Ham.

The closest Nye comes to saying “God” in this chapter is a reference to a “superpower.” Of this “superpower,” Nye writes, “why would it (she or he) mess with us that way?” (16).

By substituting “superpower” for God and then describing him as “it, she or he,” Nye is attempting to tweak Christians who hold that the God of the universe has not as an it or a she, but by using exclusively male pronouns.

This sort of feminist virtue signaling, rampant in the writings of both secular and religious authors of recent times, simply signals the author’s ignorance of, and contempt for, the God whose judgment he will face in the last day.

Nye And The Constitution

Throughout Chapter 2, Nye adopts the annoying assumption that Christians, because they are Christians, must at the same time swear off any use of, or appreciation for modern technology.

This could not be more wrong. In fact, one could make a very strong counter-argument that Christianity is the reason we have attained to the high degree of technological innovation we have today.

Christianity posits that a rational God spoke the universe into existence. As such, one would expect to find that the universe is not an absurd place, but on that exhibits consistency in the way it operates. And not only that, but that this same rational God created man in his own image with the ability to think and reason and commanded him to “fill the earth and subdue it.” Used properly, science is a powerful tool for carrying forth this commandment, which sometimes is referred to as the cultural mandate.

Nye attempts to embarrass Christians by noting that the Constitution speaks of science. Writes Nye,

I reminded the audience [the audience at the Ham/Nye debate] of Article, 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. One of the duties of Congress is ‘to promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts…’ ” (16)

Very well. But what Nye doesn’t tell you is that many of the men associated with the founding of our nation and the drafting of the Constitution were Christians. They quite properly saw no conflict between their Christian faith and “Science and the Useful Arts” and neither do Christians today. As noted above, the same God who spoke the universe into creation endowed also endowed man with his logical faculties and commanded him to use them. Far from opposing science, Christianity fully supports it.

The beef Christians have is not with science, but with scientism. Scientism is the notion that the scientific method furnishes us with knowledge. But as noted above, science is founded upon the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent. As a result, it can never provide us with the truth. The best science can do is provide us with useful opinions. Christians do not disdain science for this, but they do recognize its limitations.

Nye’s Straw Man

Nye says of Ken Ham that, “He has a book that he believes provides all the answers to any natural science question that could ever be posed” (17). This is simply a straw man.

No one, at least no one that I know of, asserts that the Bible provides answers to every question that can be posed about biology or any other subject. For example, in one of his books – I don’t have the reference handy – Gordon Clark raised the question about the ocotillo, whether it should be classified as a cactus or not. This is a question of biology about which the Bible is entirely silent.

An experienced biologist could put forth reasons why or why not an ocotillo is a cactus. It would depend on how he defines a cactus and whether, in his view, the ocotillo meets that definition. But in the end, the classification of the ocotillo would be a matter of scientific opinion. It would not be knowledge in the sense of once and for all settling the question.

What Christians do assert about the Bible, and I am of the opinion that his includes Ken Ham, is not that it answers every question one can pose – the secret things belong to the LORD our God – but that to the extent that Scripture speaks to a particular issue – be it a matter of history, philosophy, theology, or biology – it is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. God knows all propositions, some of which he has been pleased to reveal to this people in his Word.

Shades of Bernie Sanders

It is important to point out Nye’s straw man, not only because it misrepresents what Christians believe, but because of the dangerous conclusion Nye reaches as a result of his errant view of Christianity. Writes Nye,

Imagine this man or some of his followers on a jury. If their minds were made up, there would be nothing for the defense or prosecuting attorneys to do. No evidence would sway these jurors. They would refuse to use their intellect to assess the quality of evidence. They would not employ even the most rudimentary critical thinking skill. They would sit very politely, I imagine, but evidence would not matter at all. That is a very troubling prospect indeed. The rule of law would be ignored. They would be, well they are, excluding themselves from our society. They do not want to participate. I hope all of us will consider the potential consequences of this sort of thinking – or nonthinking. If there were a test of competency for voters, how well would they fare? (17)

One gets the distinct sense that Nye, if he had the power to do so, would be more than happy to banish Christians from having any voice in government. In this regard, he is much like Bernie Sanders, who, after castigating Russell Vought, a nominee for the position of deputy White House budget director for stating that Muslims are condemned, concluded his remarks with the words, “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

It’s amazing how progressives such as Nye and Sanders, men who pride themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness, can be so intolerant with those who believe the Christian faith. We’re often told that it’s the Christians who produce intolerant societies, but it’s really those who deny the Gospel who are the tyrants.

A Surprisingly Good Concluding Remark

After all the nonsense in Chapter 2, Nye makes a surprisingly good statement near the end. He writes, “If there is something divine in our nature, something that sets humans apart from all other creatures, surely our ability to reason is a key part of it” (18).

Nye may not be happy to hear this, but what he wrote is actually consistent with what the Bible teaches about man. Unlike the popular scientific view of man, which sees him as nothing more than an advanced animal, the Bible sees man as a wholly separate category.

For example, the psalmist enjoins his readers “Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.”

Peter writes about “natural brute beasts” in his second epistle. Interestingly, the Greek word translated brute is aloga, without reason or logic.

On the other hand, in John chapter one we see that Christ is spoken of as “The true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” That is to say, the men think rationally because the Logos, the Logic of God, has endowed them with a rational spirit.

As much as he may not like to hear it, Bill Nye is able to write his anti-Christian books only because the God whom he hates has given him the intellectual tools to do so.

Perhaps that same God will someday show mercy to Bill Nye and effectually call him to faith in Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I pray that he would do so.