So last week I went through the unanswered questions posed to Ken Ham via Bill Nye, so this week I will try to address the questions that Bill Nye could not answer.
Questions for Billy Nye that he could not answer:
- Can you show me one instance of new information being added in a mutation?
- Can you explain why there are natural laws that are dependable if God does not exist?
- Why are you excited about new discoveries if there is no life after death?
Can you show me one instance of new information being added in a mutation?
The reason that Bill Nye did not answer this is that this is huge proof against macro-evolution. I am surprised that bow tie Bill did not go to the age-old evolutionist answer of “we see evolution happen every day when bacteria evolves to create new metabolic properties in order to attack antibiotics.” They say that this proves Darwinian evolution because this bacteria is evolving into something totally different and more complex.
The problem is that this bacteria is not gaining new genetic information or becoming something more complex, it is actually losing information and becoming something less complex. Let me give you an analogy. It would be like if you are a computer analyst who left clicks and right clicks on a mouse all day long, so you decide to do your job more efficiently, you could just cut off your thumb and three other fingers so that they would not get in the way. Can you attack that mouse more efficiently – yes, does it look like you have gained some advantages – yes, have you really become more evolved – no. You have lost some capabilities/information in order to do one job more efficiently.
If one-celled organisms would change into other kinds (molecules to man thinking), it would require new genetic information, which is not what one seeing in the changes in bacteria (or anything else for that matter). When a bacterium develops resistance where there previously was none in the population, it does so by mutation or a random copying mistake which changes or shuffles the existing genetic information. What is important to see is that this change represents a loss of information, not a gaining of information. I’ll say that again…it represents a loss of information, not a gaining of information.
Mutations, interestingly enough, reduce specificity which means that the mutated enzyme is less effective in its primary function. Therefore, the loss of information may show to have a consequence of breaking down an antibiotic, but there is a loss of information. In no case have bacteria been observed to become resistant through a gain of information.
Can you explain why there are natural laws that are dependable if God does not exist?
An interesting point in the debate was when Bill Nye kept at Ken Ham saying the creation model goes against the laws of nature, stating that God would have had to put these on hold in order to make something out of nothing, create life from non-life, and do any such miracle. If I was debating the so-called science guy I would have turned this argument right around on him. In order for Darwinian evolution to be true, it goes against every law of nature – the laws of thermodynamics (which both men did not understand), the laws of matter, the laws of energy, the laws of logic, the laws of mathematics, and all other laws of nature. To create order out of non-order by chance and change is impossible and not provable, and a formation of such laws by chance would not be possible either.
This is why the evolutionist can not depend on natural laws because these laws could easily change at any time due to the scientific worldview they hold. Let me give you an example (which is what I would have used against Billy) – paternal blood tests. If an A-blood type father and an A-blood type mother have a baby, they will have a 93.75% chance of having a type-A blood type baby or a 6.25% chance of having a type-O blood type baby. There will be a 0% chance of type-B or type-AB simply because there is no genetic information for B. You again cannot add information. The creationist is able to understand this because they depend upon the laws of science, logic, and mathematics embedded in creation. The Darwinian evolutionist by definition cannot come with any certainty to this conclusion, because their entire scientific understand depends upon the fact that organisms gain information to become more evolved. Therefore, in the evolutionist world, you cannot do paternal blood tests because the B-gene could pop up out of nowhere or even a newly formed type-C (isn’t it interesting we never see a type-C pop up?!?).
To go against Billy Nye’s original argument, it is not the creationist that is unprepared for future discoveries in science, it is the evolutionist that is unprepared.
Why are you excited about new discoveries if there is no life after death?
Bill kept wanting Ken Ham to tell of some predictions that the creationist model can make. One clear prediction that the creationist model makes is that all men will die and God will ultimately get all the glory. As I said before, I love that Bill Nye showed a true love for science, but his love for science is to go towards man’s glory.
Great scientists such as Robert Boyle (Father of Modern Chemistry and the Scientific Method), who took the entire Bible in plain, literal context as inspired and inerrant, sought to understand science more in order to give God the glory for His Hand in creation. In ten words, Robert Boyle exclaimed:
From a knowledge of His work, we shall know Him.
New discoveries are not for man’s good, but ultimately so that we may understand the author of all knowledge, the author of all science…God.