Bill Nye has been catapulted to cultural stardom by trumpeting climate change alarmism. But his new Netflix show is filled with anything but real science. Strange for a “science guy.”

Anyone with an ounce of cultural popularity that is willing to sound the climate change alarm will be given all the media attention he or she wants. You don’t even need any real credibility. For example, Al Gore knows nothing about science but won a Nobel Prize for producing a scientific documentary about climate change. A documentary that, incidentally, has been debunked more than once.

Bill Nye is the latest pseudo-celebrity being used by the media to pus various forms of pseudo-science. For example, in an episode of his new Netflix show, Nye aired a clip of actress Rachel Bloom singing a song called “My Sex Junk.” Now, before you get any ideas that maybe the content of the song is better than the title, it’s not. It’s worse. Much worse.

This is a song and dance number (a very awkward performance) about how sexuality is fluid and gender is more about what you think rather than biology. The main message of the performance is transgenderism is scientific fact.

This is a strange thing for a “science guy” to be promoting. There is nothing remotely settled about transgenderism because it is not scientific. In fact, anyone not quoting political rhetoric would quickly admit that it is an un-scientific idea. But that’s only because transgenderism violates the basic laws of science. The only people willing to call transgenderism settled science are those pushing a political agenda, not a scientific one. An article at Real Clear Politics comments on Nye’s promotion of a political agenda over science:

“I find it fascinating that Nye, the man who often complains that there are people out there ignoring ‘proven’ science on climate, and pushes the importance of scientific discovery, is willing to completely ditch sound science and facts in the face of a political agenda. Transgenderism, for all its promotion as today’s cause célèbre is not real in any world but the political. Science recognizes the disorder of gender dysphoria, but beyond this disorder, there is no scenario where a woman is actually a man, though she posses two X chromosomes, ovaries, and other things specific to female biology. Likewise, a man cannot menstruate or become pregnant, or give birth. This is obvious to anyone still in grade school, but apparently not to Nye, the actor who touts himself as a man of science. For Nye, science and politics are the same thing.”

Wesley J. Smith, writing at First Things, argues that Nye and others like him that politicize science are actually undermining it:

“When Bill Nye the Science Guy complains of a war being waged on science, he should look in the mirror. Nye, who is actually the mechanical engineering guy—that’s his educational background—is more guilty of undermining science (properly understood) by politicizing it than almost anyone this side of Al Gore…Politicizers of science are not as clever as they think. People are watching, and the real victim of their abuse could be support for science itself. Indeed, the more vehemently establishment thinkers and their media camp followers seek to suppress alternate views and research, the more they attempt to crush ethical debates with the “anti-science” cudgel, the less people who are served by science will trust the sector. And that will be bad for everyone.”

Smith makes the argument that trying to make people choose between science and their moral or religious beliefs will result in less support for science. I agree. When science is hijacked to support a political agenda it will find far less support among those that will always choose their religious convictions over politics. But to say that religious people are anti-science because of their religious beliefs is patently false. Just as it is false to claim that scientists are hostile towards religion (as Nye and others like Richard Dawkins have been).

A recent article at Christianity Today explains that among scientists around the world, many are not necessarily religious, or even believe in God. However, among these top scientists, few are hostile to religion. That’s an altogether different narrative than we hear from the media that would have us believe that science and religion are incompatible. But listen o what two scientists said in their interview for the survey conducted by Christianity Today:

“I aspire to be a spiritual person. To me, it’s almost like a kind of Golden Rule type of thing…It’s sort of about aspiring to be good, not to be completely self-centered and have everything focus back on me and my own concerns.”

“The spirituality part of it…is why you do the work. I mean, I’m interested in understanding how the universe began, possibly what its long-term future is going to be. I think those are certainly spiritual questions.”

Spiritual questions indeed.

What is easily understood is that people with religious convictions are not opposed to science. Some of the greatest scientists in history were men and women of faith that used their faith as the impetus for their scientific work. It was because of their faith that asked questions and sought answers. The list of scientists with religious convictions is both long and extremely distinguished. No serious scientist can deny the works of such notable scientists as Bacon, Galileo, Pascal, Newton and Kepler. (Click here for one very long and impressive list.)

Christians and science have been working hand in hand for millennia. Awe of God and His universe have driven many to seek to know more and, inadvertently, confirmed their religious convictions and helped them grow closer to God. To say that science and religion are incompatible is a slander to those who’ve dedicated their lives to scientific discovery and to faithfully honoring God in their work. It’s wrong.