Abstract
Bill Nye “the science guy” has extended, in book form, his arguments from last year’s debate against young earth creationist (YEC) Ken Ham. In the second chapter he summarizes this debate (9-18). It is worth noting that the popularity of last year’s debate, which received several million hits on YouTube, exemplifies the confusion that still surrounds the relationship between evolution and religion. The polarity of these two positions represented by Nye and Ham is an inaccurate depiction of the real debates occurring in academic circles. Indeed there is a wide range of positions beyond these two conflicting ones (reductive materialism and YEC) including various models of theistic evolution (where God is understood as using the evolutionary process to bring about biological organisms) including both non-teleological and teleological.
The strength of Nye’s book lies in countering several anti-evolutionist arguments. For instance he demonstrates, contrary to YECs arguments, that there is no contradiction between the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the ever-increasing complexity of living systems (22). Nye rightly points out that the Second Law is applicable only to closed systems but not the Earth since it entails an open one. The irony with this is that the second law of thermodynamics provides a scientific argument for the finitude of the past alongside the expansion of the universe as demonstrated by the standard big bang model. If anything the second law of thermodynamics when used in such a way, unlike YEC reasoning, coheres with modern scientific knowledge and is also consonant with theistic belief.
Nye presses questions of logistics concerning Noah’s Ark in the supposed cataclysmic flood believed by YECs. He asks how eight unskilled people could cater to 14,000 animals. Nye amusingly inquires how it is possible to get from 7 thousand species to the roughly 16 million we have inhabiting the earth today (13). This would amount to eleven new species arising daily.
Nye also addresses the notion of the uselessness of half a wing and similar type arguments. In a nutshell he points to exaptation (without using the precise term), which connotes that a particular trait may evolve by serving a specific function at one point but then afterwards comes to serve another. So in this vein Nye explains that in reality there is no half of anything, for example in the case of Tiktaalik fish with transitional components in between fins and legs, it possessed “something that enabled it to crawl onto land, to escape predators, perhaps, or to get a better look at potential prey” (163).
Nye discusses important concepts closely related to evolution including punctuated equilibrium, bottlenecking, Red Queen hypothesis, mass extinctions, altruism, sexual selection and the Tree of Life. Unfortunately, in a chapter devoted to a discussion revolving around micro and macroevolution, he misstates the real issue: “The processes of microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentally the same, only the scale is different” (185). One of the fundamental problems in discerning how evolution happened is asking whether extrapolating the mechanisms involved in micro-evolutionary change are warranted to also explain macro-evolutionary changes. A number of biologists doubt that the mechanisms of natural selection acting on random mutations can actually explain all of the complexity and diversity of life on Earth. Scientists who are working on the Extended Synthesis (ES) seek to add a number of other mechanisms to explain these macro-evolutionary changes. This suggests that the processes are not fundamentally the same as Nye claims. To be clear, this is not an issue about evolution happening (the truth of common descent) but the details as to how.
Nye genuinely underestimates the severe problem associated with materialistic scenarios to the origin of life. He assumes a reductive materialist explanation when he states: “The origin of life just requires some raw material that could allow the spark of life to emerge” (285). Nye is not confronting the problem of the origin of information which seems to be what is necessary for this “spark” of life he refers to. The issue is a seemingly unresolvable problem for reductive materialism since functional information as required for a replicating system transcends beyond the material medium in which it is embedded. Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel has recently recognized this in his book Mind & Cosmos. Nye downplays the real issue at stake and meanders in mostly irrelevant discussions revolving around viruses that miss the mark.
Nye reveals much of his materialistic beliefs when he states: “As I learned more about evolution, I realized that from nature’s point of view, you and I ain’t such a big deal” (3). First, nature doesn’t have a “point of view.” Second, such pronouncements are metaphysical and not scientific; they are not necessary conclusions from evolutionary theory.
Nye expresses concerns with the influence evolution deniers can have on their children and the future progress of scientific advancement in the USA (4-5). From a history and philosophy of science perspective I find this argument interesting. As a matter of heuristics, assuming design (creationism) in certain instances can be more fruitful than not. For example, the junk DNA hypothesis by Francis Crick in 1980 assumed a trial and error process (through natural selection and random mutation) but led biologists down blind alleys. Steven Fuller, a sociologist and philosopher of science, has made the point that scientists that see the universe and biological systems as the result of purposeful design are more likely to resolve difficulties in science. This has been demonstrated historically regardless of whether there truly exists a designer or not.
Despite some of my misgivings, Nye is articulate in explaining the evidence for evolution through natural selection to the uninitiated. He also succeeds in explaining the multiple failures of YEC. However, if one is looking for a substantive discussion into nuanced arguments revolving around evolutionary biology, the origin of life, philosophy of science and the science-theology dialogue, one won’t find it in Nye’s book. That is surely undeniable.