Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation

Bill Nye is an entertaining writer and quite crafty when it comes to intertwining humor into scientific jargon that in the hands of another author could run the risk of being dangerously boring! Kudos to you Mr. Nye and thank you for the journey you took me on when reading UNDENIABLE - Evolution and the Science of Creation. BTW, in a future edition I believe the "Science Guy" should use his last name in the title such as: Unde(NYE)able. Take it or leave it. Looks kind of weird now that I typed it out, so nevermind.I recommend this book to everyone. Regardless of background in faith, scientific interest, or level of evolutionary understanding; Bill Nye does a good job outlining a niche in the evolutionary community that any reader could comprehend. I for one do not agree with his overarching and quite spiritual concept of evolution, but I feel at times he can get quite scientific if he chooses to back away from inference and inaccurate facts. One major lack of credibility I constantly found with this work revolved around the absence of source material. Not to take away from the whimsical demeanor and candid likeability of Mr. Nye's writing style, but as a reader I longed for a reference every once in awhile. In short, for being a "Science Guy" this book is not very scientific. Undeniable is filled with stories, analogies, and claimed facts that Bill Nye beautifully unfolds page after page in the total absence of their... dare I say... origin.When reading a book that has "the Science of Creation" in the title, many assumptions are made before the hardcover is opened. Personally, I was expecting a cross-comparison of sorts. A list of claims from both sides and then some sort of scientific approach to outlining the falsifiability of the previously mentioned claim(s). Another assumption would be that a working definition of Creation and Evolution would be outlined and then a conversation of how one or the other can or can not be actually observed, tested, repeated, and verified by means of empirical experimentation. Bill Nye did none of these. What he did do was throw all theists into the same boat as Ken Ham and chat offhandedly about how dumb he is and that the clear winner of the lengthy debate was himself, the "Science Guy". As a reviewer of Undeniable, I am not claiming that there is or is not science to Creation, what I am saying is that the title is misleading.Having a working definition for evolution could have really helped Mr. Nye when crafting such a manuscript. It felt, on several occasions and in varying chapters, that he himself has a cloudy understanding of what and how evolution actually works. The "Science Guy" also gave the impression that he has actually never even read the works of Charles Darwin. For example on page 7, Mr. Nye says: "the Origin of Species remains a remarkable and remarkably readable book, readily available in hardback, paperback, and online a century and a half later. In it, Darwin gives us example after example of evolution and explains the means by which it happens, providing both the facts and the mechanism in one volume."As an actual reader of Darwin, I know for a fact that in his book the Origin of Species, Darwin actually does not give any examples of evolution. In fact, he never uses the word evolution even once. Another proponent of evolution, Jerry Coyne writes in his book WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE, "A better title for The Origin of Species, then, would have been The Origin of Adaptations: while Darwin did figure out how and why a single species changes over time (largely by natural selection), he never explained how one species splits in two. Yet in many ways this problem of splitting is just as important as understanding how a single species evolves. After all, the diversity of nature encompasses millions of species, each with its own unique set of traits. And all of this diversity came from a single ancient ancestor. If we want to explain biodiversity, then, we have to do more than explain how new traits arise - we must also explain how new species arise. For if speciation didn't occur, there would be no biodiversity at all - only a single, long-evolved descendant of that first species."Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Bill Nye and I believe he has branded his own fun and exciting approach to science that has educated a generation in this country, but some of the stuff in this book doesn't make sense. When speaking of chance and how natural selection works, Nye writes on page 23: "Evolution is not random; it's the opposite of random." Ken Ham would have had an interesting rebuttal if this statement was made in their big debate, because the opposite or antonym of "Random" is "Methodical" or "Planned". Just a tip, this statement causes confusion and ads fuel to the fires of folks like Ken Ham.Mr. Nye will continue to mystify his readers by saying many other unintelligible things like:"The exquisite variety and balance that we see in nature is the result of nature itself." His passion for nature and evolutionary thought is astounding, but this kind of statement is so not scientific. It's like saying: "The exquisite variety and balance that we see in CABERNET SAUVIGNON is the result of CABERNET SAUVIGNON itself." or "The exquisite variety and balance that we see in ARCHITECTURE is the result of ARCHITECTURE itself.""When we're talking about evolution, the expression `a long time' is an understatement." Then later he'll throw out this comment when speaking of human evolution: "We've been changing faster than ever over the past ten thousand years, and probably up through the past few hundred years."And on page 123 he writes: "The missing nature of missing links is actually further proof of evolution. It's just what we expect to find out there in nature. If the fossil record were perfect - now that would be a mystery. By the way, while I'm writing here about the incompleteness of the fossil record, keep in mind that the incompleteness is becoming less and less incomplete."I know I've made some serious suggestions, so here's a silly one. This kind of talk from him makes me think he should change his stage name to Bill Nye the "Circle Guy". This is double talk. Let me get this straight, missing links prove evolution and with every fossil discovered the record becomes less incomplete, but more mysterious? I love ya Bill, but man I am worried about you. When speaking of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man, Bill Nye said: "They almost embraced the same worldview that we have with the same suspicions or beliefs about a life after death." This is when source material would be very helpful, because this sounds very unscientific.When philosophizing about the future of human evolution, Nye says: "Is there a Homo superius just around the next deep-time corner, waiting to take our place? Let's think about what it would take: If we were to give rise to a new species, something would have to happen to us to create a bottleneck or isolated place for a founder-person and her or his mate to show up and get separated from you and me and our offspring. In the modern world, that is very unlikely. We have airplanes and ships and the Internet.... Without geographic isolation, I am not sure we can get a new species of hominid, not ever. But that is not the same thing as saying that humans are no longer evolving, because we surely are."Once again, Bill Nye the "Circle Guy" is brandishing a stunning display of double talk. He says that we can't evolve in our modern society due to all of the freedom to travel and interbreed. So, are we humans currently evolving or not? My head is spinning.All and all, I give UNDENIABLE - Evolution and the Science of Creation the most stars I can because this book is highly readable and quite entertaining. If I were a scientists or anyone in the field of evolutionary biology, my number of stars might be different.For more on this subject and a different niche of the debate, read my book.  I believe in Jesus & science: is that possible?

Bill Nye has written a book that defines the undeniable truth that the Universe, the Earth and Mankind are a far older subject than the Bible (and many other religions) give credence. I felt the book was focussed towards people who already had a scientific leaning and could feel satisfied by the simplistic (though referenced) explanation of scientific truths.Bill should have focussed his attention on societies who hold a scriptural/religious view on the Universe. Being from the USA, I felt that if he could align a careful examination of the first few chapters of Genesis in light of what is being discovered, dug up and observed today.A clear and fresh message could be sent to not only to the Judaism/Christian cultures, but other religions that rely on such (what we of the 21st century think are) primitive ideas.For example...Many folk, religious or otherwise will ask, "What existed before the Big Bang"?I would ask, "What was the 'deep' (waters) that the spirit of God (Elohim) hovered above before he/they said "Let there be light".My personal baulk is Genesis 1v6...AKJV"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.(7)And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."No were in the OT is the word 'Firmament' described as nothing less than a solid (even crystal ) barrier. The Hebrew translation of the word רקיע = raqiya. Apparently it has windows. the stars are embedded in it.I can not look at the Blue Sky and not imagine what my early ancestors thought. 'We (the land) are surrounded by water. The Hebrews differed from earlier religions by not assigning the bulk of the Earth to the backs of Elephants or other animals, but agree to say that the Earth (flat or spherical) hangs upon nothing.Some of you may say hypocrite if I say I still believe in Jesus and if Genesis is false then God is a liar. No, I'm saying that just as we don't teach our first graders 'quantum physics' and expect them to understand it, we progress.A very good friend of mine once told me, 'We may well be the Universe's first intelligence/creation to look back on itself and say 'Wow'!We may not be alone, but we maybe the only one.My Son, who is a deep thinker, but no doubt lending from older thinkers, once asked me, 'Is the Universe closed (i.e. singular), or Infinite'? (We are talking General Space here, not multi D's).I guessed 'closed'.He said, 'yeah, it is probably closed, because if it was Infinite, there would be an Infinite number of Me's replying to this singular question".Keep the Peace,Gaz

Only read the first few chapters so far, but it's been a very informative and entertaining book. Bill Nye is great at explaining scientific concepts to the lay reader whilst not being patronising. I read along with the audio book which I got free with an Audible offer, narrated by the man himself.

A thought provoking primer for evolutionary biology. Fascinating and engagingly written. Nyes enthusiasm for his subject shines from every page. I loved it :)

Excellent book! Not suitable for closed minded people and those who believe in things without evidence.

Well written, entertaining and highly informative. The truth is out there folks believe what you will, I'll go with the evidence.

reading atm very good and informative