Liberal Creationism vs. Christian Creationism
I’m a bit old for Bill Nye. By the time his children’s science show came on in the early ’90’s, I had already graduated to reading Carl Sagan’s more advanced presentation of the vapid and vacuous “I Fucking Love Science!” worldview.
My love of critical thinking and the scientific method itself has only strengthened with time, which makes me despise all the more those who distort this elegant and powerful process and its findings in the service of their secular humanist agenda. William Saletan, a Jewish science columnist for the Leftist webzine Slate, said it best before being brutally checked by his colleagues and bosses for heresy: Bill Nye and his ilk are essentially “liberal creationists,” religious adherents of their own supernatural creation myth.
I don’t have any patience for Ken Ham and other Creation “scientists” who are feverishly trying to pitch Genesis as a literal record of what really happened. But Answers in Genesis and all those angry Kansans crashing school board meetings wouldn’t exist if science hadn’t been politically and philosophically weaponized against Christianity in the first place. “Science!” has been deployed as a battering ram in our public schools and universities, in our children’s programming, and in our Hollywood media, invariably conflating the scientific method and its fruits with secular humanism and its political agenda.
So, it’s with this bitter contempt for both parties that I sat down to watch Bill Nye “The Science Guy” debate Ken Ham “The Creationism Guy.”
Ken Ham begins by confirming that secularists have indeed hijacked the word “science,” concluding that Christian fundamentalists must instead hijack the word for themselves. His argument basically consists of trotting out some token scientists who endorse Young Earth Creationism and, more importantly, confirming the false premise that the natural sciences have decisive religious significance. Within the popular American milieu, dominated by Protestant Christians and secular humanist liberals, Ken Ham and Bill Nye cover the full spectrum of the public debate.
As a self-professed defender of Christianity, Ham lost the debate before he started because he agreed that a book written, edited, and translated by bronze-age Bedouins can be directly pitted against state-of-the-art scientific knowledge. As a self-professed defender of science, Nye lost the debate before he started because he offered a platform to a man whose pseudo-scientific shtick wins with its target audience of scientifically illiterate Christians by merely presenting his slick comic book attack on mainstream astronomy, geology, genetics, and anthropology.
Both Christianity and science lost in this exchange. As a friend, street fighter, and Creationist comrade of mine, Scott Terry, noted on Facebook, “The only thing Nye and Ham can agree on is how evil the old white European anthropologists were.” It took roughly half an hour before Ken Ham got around to calling evolutionists “racist.” Nye was quick to agree with Ham’s anti-racist position because he is no less guilty than Ham of mutilating and contorting his presentation of scientific research to cram it into his worldview.
His “Eyes of Nye” pop science episode covering the topic of race is at least as unscientific and ideology-driven as anything you’ll find in the Creation Museum.
Bill Nye deployed just about all the deceptive tropes, insisting that “DNA proves we’re 99.9% the same.” It’s actually a bit closer to 99.5%, but what does that prove? Our genetic similarity to chimpanzees is just under 99%, so there’s a lot of room for very important differences within that one percent. He can be forgiven for repeating the Out of Africa myth that humanity is entirely descended from a recent common ancestor in Africa, as the data on Neanderthal, Denisovan, and other hominid admixture in modern populations wasn’t available when the show aired.
If he loved science as much as I do, he would issue a retraction of his false statements, admitting that there’s dramatically more genetic diversity in humans than he originally claimed. The debate would have been a great opportunity for him to publicly correct his sophomoric and pseudo-scientific statements, but he spent it on the defensive, confirming that the anthropologists who’ve argued those positions were not only incorrect but downright immoral for even entertaining these hypotheses.
Bill Nye and his selected expert for this episode walk us through the evolution of the only meaningful racial difference we’re allowed to acknowledge: skin color. The Founder Effect is trotted out to explain why we have all the supposedly meaningless racial differences like eye folds and blond hair. Magically, the Founder Effect only produces meaningless racial differences, and cannot influence anything like intelligence which would actually conflict with secular humanist egalitarianism. According to Bill Nye, intelligence, sexual attractiveness, and personality characteristics occupy a privileged position on the genome, immune to the laws of selection to which the rest of genes are subject.
The canard about there being more diversity within races than between races is trotted out. This alone should be enough to have Dr. Nye’s science card revoked. After all, there’s more variation within males and within females than between the average of males and females. The difference between the tallest male and the shortest male is indeed much greater than the difference between the male and female average. Yet, can we draw the conclusion that females are as tall as males?
That statement means absolutely nothing, and only exists to obscure the truth of meaningful racial differences, deliberately and obviously deceiving his audience. Toward the end, he shows us a “racist,” a fat stupid white guy in a wife-beater who’s devastated to learn that “science” proves that race doesn’t really exist and humanity is descended, one and all, from a very recent African ancestor. I doubt we’ll get to enjoy a sequel where the ironically racist stereotype of a fat stupid white guy strides into Dr. Mary-Claire King’s office with the wealth of recent peer-reviewed findings which completely destroy her Leftist religion of global brotherhood and human interchangeability.
I fucking love science. I always have and I always will. From my earliest memories, I was asking questions and seeking answers about the planets, the stars, the canyons, the glaciers, and the evolutionary adaptations in the natural world surrounding me. In fact, I love science so much that I picked the lock on the gate of scientific inquiry which had been bolted and chained shut by the enforcers of secular egalitarian orthodoxy.
Watching those two self-important and self-promoting ideologues disguising their pursuit of their agenda as “science” reminded me how fortunate we were to have been blessed by heroic defenders of truth like William Shockley, J.P. Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, and Kevin MacDonald. With all due respect to the Royal Air Force, never was so much owed by so many to so few. These torch bearers stood for the forbidden truth in its darkest hour, introducing most of the men and women reading this to a realm of reality which the oligarchs struggled mightily to hide from us.
Faith in things beyond the material remains outside the scope of the scientific process. Any belief system, whether it’s Ken Ham’s sola scriptura literalism or Bill Nye’s radical humanism, which demands that we embrace falsehoods in defense of the belief system, leads us away from the Eternal. At the apex, scientific truth and religious Truth, knowledge and wisdom, faith and facts, all converge. Our duty is to stay the course, following the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom wherever the path leads over whatever obstacles are placed in our way.
Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World & Me
Requiem for a Jigger
Making Lions out of Lambs: A Response to Max Morton of American Greatness
How the Coronavirus Took Over the World
Heidegger’s History of Metaphysics, Part Five: The Age of the World Picture
Look out honey, ’cause I’m using technology! Eumaios, Evola, & Neville on Race
Critical Race Theory: America’s 21st-Century Lysenkoism
Is “Short Time Preference” Really Such a Problem?