Bill Nye debated Ken Ham on the topic, Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era? at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, on February 4, 2014. Ham explained the difference between operational science and historical (forensic) science in some detail. Operational science has to do with investigations into nature in the present (repeated experiments require the present). Historical science investigates the past, trying to understand the origin of life, complexity in nature, humans, et cetera. Bill Nye denied the distinction. He referred to a TV program where historical investigations and operational science are treated as the same.
For people who are eager to find evidence that will ‘delete’ Genesis 1, that might suffice. But reasonable, logical thinking people should ask themselves the following questions:
- How many Nobel prizes have been given for evolutionary discoveries?
- How many laws of nature are based on evolutionary principles?
- Why is it that only operational science leads to technological applications?
- Did Darwin really give conclusive evidence in his book, On the Origin of Species, that evolution (common descent) is true?
The answers are mostly negative, because evolution has no practical value. It is because evolution has a different purpose than science. Science wants to understand how nature works, and how to apply it in technology for the benefit of society. Evolution desperately wants to prove that there is no Creator God, which means there is no life after death and nothing to worry about.
Why is it so important to prove that evolution is true? Why is it so important that even the crucial distinction between operational science and historical investigations is denied? The reason is that once people understand the difference, they understand there is no testable, observable evidence that evolution is true. That will be catastrophic for atheism. They need evolution to be true. It is very important in their atheism campaign.
That is why we so often hear that religion is at war with science. It doesn’t mean operational science. One has to be fairly deluded to think that any person (Bible believers included) can oppose the established laws of gravity, or that proteins consist of amino acids. Laws of nature have been established by repeated experiments.
Evolution is a different scenario. When Bible believers take a closer look at the ‘science’ of evolution, they find its evidence wanting. They question it. So the dreaded creationists and ID people must be silenced. Laws are used to prevent any criticism of evolution in schools. No one dares to criticise Darwinism (evolutionism). Evolutionism refers to faith in Darwin without objective proof: you must believe by faith in Darwin alone. NB! By evolution we logically exclude variations among kinds, like finches with different beaks.
Logic tells us that laws have never been necessary to protect real science from criticism. Testable, observable, repeatable experiments proved the laws of nature (they stand until they are falsified). So why did Bill Nye insist there is no difference between historical (forensic) science and operational science? Because he is not a science guy, but an evolution guy. He defends atheism. Operational science is not the same as historical investigations into events of the past (forensic science). Reasonable, logical people understand that very well.
Do yourself a favour. Keep your eyes and ears open for the false claim that there is a war between religion and science. There isn’t. It is a war between filling heaven and filling hell.