Bill Nye’s Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation may set him up in hear to at least help change the world, but there are some distinct flaws in his basis. According to several reviews, who mostly call on Bill Nye for not wanting to compromise with other voices like Ken Ham on the theories of evolution, he’s also taken to creating a cult of personality rather than a scientist basing his thinking on fact.
Spiting Ken Ham Won’t Change the World Either
Because of his constant ranting against the Ken Ham line of thinking, the book loses a lot of opportunities to come to balance among theories of creation. The narrative, designed to make people want to face the facts and change the world as they know it, is a stark parallel to the beliefs of the Ken Hams of the world, and compromise would have been much more welcome and widely accepted. Unfortunately, the book forces you to choose, giving way for an unsophisticated and narrow-minded view of the present state of the universe, evolution vs. creation, and exploration.
Another striking drawback to the narrative is when the talk of evolution grows form being a tangible scientific theory to a philosophical world view, which he uses to argue religion. This has never changed the world before and it probably never will. Nye discusses creation in the religious view and the perception of the afterlife, which he apparently finds an unnecessary curiosity. Sadly, there is no way Bill Nye can assert what happens after death because there’s no one around to tell the tale. Go figure.
Bill Nye Could Change the Wolrd, but His Logic is Warped
Nye also refuses to acknowledge of the problematic nature of evolution and the vaguer parts of the theory, and takes the Tim Keller approach to it. By putting a stamp of approval on the Grand Theory of Evolution, Nye once again forces readers to adopt evolution as an all-encompassing dogma, and that argument will likely change the world as we live it, but perhaps not in the grandiose way he’s proposing.
Ultimately, Nye ends the book by urging readers to find their own conclusions about where we come from and what brought us here, and to take that knowledge and change the world. While that thinking isn’t original but has always started gears in people’s heads on how to change the world, it certainly doesn’t make his statements ‘undeniable.’
