|Graphic liberated from Sye Ten Bruggencate|
If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate.Statements like this are fundamentally flawed and should be disappointing to any of his fans who actually know about science. Not only is he appealing to emotion and making a straw man argument, but he is equivocating evolutionary philosophy with practical science. The truth is, evolution is not at all important to true scientific and technological development! (For that matter, the Dobzhansky myth that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" has been debunked as well.) Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has this challenge:
I want Bill Nye to name one invention—one piece of technology—that would not have been able to be invented without the inventor believing in evolution. Just name one!You can read "My Challenge to Bill Nye" in its full context, here.
Usually, when I have challenged an evolutionist to come up with one example of something invented for mankind that would not be possible without accepting evolution, I get the following response: “Understanding resistance in bacteria and thus being able to invent drugs.”
But as we have written on our website many times before, antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. Whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, a researcher can observe the resistance and even understand issues of mutations and other things that can cause the resistance. Such research is dealing with observational science.