@Ken, Bill Nye is, I think, talking
about Young Earth Creationism, which is a belief in a strict literal interpretation of Genesis, which is inconsistent with the evidence we have available.
@Timothy, I'm not sure what definition of «Creationism» you are using, but the article is mainly talking
about Young Earth Creationism, which is inconsistent with the scientific evidence available.
Bill Nye is talking
about Young Earth Creationism, or Biblical Literalism, not all religious belief.
Not exact matches
Responding to a piece I wrote for the Washington Post
about my journey from
young earth creationism to evolutionary
creationism, Mohler told readers that my «glib and superficial endorsement of evolution and its reconciliation with Christianity is all too common and all to irresponsible.»
At the time, the majority of the science faculty espoused
young earth creationism, so I learned
about evolution in the context of Christian apologetics courses, with the presupposition that evolution was incompatible with the Christian faith.
They had already determined that evolution could not be true based on their religious convictions, and so any logical or scientific inconsistencies within the
young earth creationism model were dismissed with a shrug of the shoulders and a pithy statement
about the mysteries of God.
Indeed, every single «original» idea from this guy's mouth has turned out to be as accurate as the likes of
Young Earth Creationism (aka not in the slightest) and his chances of getting things right seems to be
about as «good» as the daily horoscope, TV psychics and Micheal Pachter's predictions (aka non existent).