Oh, please; Bill Nye warns Creationism "threatens U.S. science?"

Bill Nye, former 'Science Guy,' warns creationism threatens US science (Christian Science Monitor)

Bill Nye: Creationism Threatens U.S. Science (Huffington Post)

Really? "Creationism Threatens U.S. science?" Nye said he fears the things Evolutionists purport "...about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text..." - meaning the biblical account of Creation in Genesis 1:1.

Religious background aside, after carefully exploring the Theory of Evolution, I've always found that with its gaps, it takes far more "faith" to believe in Evolution than in Intelligent Design/God created. And Nye's hysterical claims emphasize that fact. For example, it begs a few questions;

1. If Evolution is such a sound scientific theory and Creationism is not, how could Creationism threaten U.S. science? Remember, Evolutionists "...[oppose] efforts in recent years by lawmakers and school boards in some states to present Bible stories as an alternative to evolution in public schools." (Emphasis added to a quote from both articles above). And in most - if not all cases, Creationists only advocate for "equal time" representation (e.g., "alternative") not exclusivity.

2. And - just for the sake of argument - even if Creationism somehow did "threaten U.S. science," why would it threaten only U.S. science? Why not science throughout the world? Again, if Evolution is so almighty scientifically sound and Creationism is just some crackpot, half-baked, unfounded theory, how is it so threatening as an alternative theory?

But, Nye expresses concern that by equally representing Creationism as a possible explanation to the origins of the universe and life we might "raise a generation of students who don't believe in the process of science," then that begs other questions (in the interests of consistent logic and so on):

If life as we know it occurred because of a random event, then:

1. Why is it that Planet Earth just so happens to stay in the exact rotational tilt angle range and the exact orbital path around its sun to sustain life for all this time? Why hasn't some random event came along to alter it's rotational tilt angle or its orbital path enough to cause Earth to turn to an ice planet or a ball of dust (say, like the moon)?, and

2. If life as we know it amongst the species - in other words, not just human beings - stems from some random event billions of years ago, why is it that every species has some kind of built-in reproductive system? Why didn't some kind of other random event come along that wiped out the earlier life forms - as in life forms randomly created but created without any ability to reproduce - before they developed ability to reproduce? If that would've happened, then life woudn't exist today in any form. Yet it does and has and seems to have a good shot at continuing to do so in the foreseeable future.

And that's just for starters. If you're interested in some scientific process analysis of both theories, I'd recommend two books:

•  Strobel, Lee, (2004) The Case For the Creator, Zondervan, Miami, Florida and Grand Rapids, Michigan
• Heeren, Fred (1997) Show Me God, Newark, England.

"[The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that] a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
- Sir Fred Hoyle, Hoyle on Evolution, Nature