“Evolution deniers?” Do ya see any prejudice in THAT statement? Before we can decide if we “deny” evolution, we need to understand the terms. Bill [Nye] needs to define the word evolution first in order for folks to know if they want to “deny” it or not! I have been through this important define-the-terms step in all 100 debates I did with evolutionists at various universities as well as thousands of Q&A sessions. I encourage students and teachers everywhere to carefully define the word evolution BEFORE they enter into a discussion on evolution, so everyone knows what they are discussing. It is futile to proceed until the terms are defined. The problem (intentional?) is that the word “evolution” actually has six meanings or levels or stages:

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time/space/matter from nothing in the supposed “Big Bang”
Chemical evolution: all the elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars formed from dust clouds
Organic evolution: life formed from non-living matter
Macro-evolution: plants and animals produce offspring different than their ‘kind’
Micro-evolution: variations develop within the kind such as big dogs and little dogs; bacteria becoming resistant to drugs; etc.

Only ONE of these definitions for evolution is true SCIENCE—Number 6. The first five are part of a RELIGION that adherents must “believe” in since they have NEVER been observed or demonstrated. Bill is guilty of mixing these definitions indiscriminately. He (along with many science books) sees and shows lots of evidence for definition #6 with which I agree, but then ASSUMES that this is evidence for the first five. That is NOT good science, Bill! The variations we all observe and that every farmer on planet earth understands and uses does NOT offer ANY evidence for the first five definitions of evolution.

Of course, Bill is welcome to BELIEVE the first five definitions, but he should be honest and stop trying to deceive people into thinking they are also part of science. Only #6, micro-evolution can be observed and demonstrated, the criteria for provable science. Creationists do NOT “deny” that there is evidence for evolution definition #6, but we DO deny there is any “scientific” evidence for the first five. Bill should plainly and honestly admit his use of the word evolution is religious. He is free to promulgate his religious views on his own dime, but he should not be allowed to use tax payer money to teach his mixed definitions of evolution as science in tax funded programs. Bill is the one who is “damaging children” and “harming the scientific process” when he confuses the terms and evidence!