Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate

I'm going to chime in here with one post, and probably not read a lot of the replies.

I am a Christian. I started there, rejected my parent's religion based on evidence from philosophy and science, then, upon further investigation, came back to my belief in the metaphysical propositions of a monotheistic explanation for the existence of the universe in which we reside.

That being said, whether you believe in a God-directed explanation of existence or not, this is not a debate you should be interested in seeing. Bill Nye, while not being exceptionally accomplished in any scientific field other than edutainment, is actually a charismatic, educated man with a series background in science. Ken Ham, on the other hand, is not. This is a bit like watching a basketball game between Iowa State and Ames High School. Ken Ham does not have the ability or desire to present a cogent defense of a God-directed explanation of existence. Imagine a campus debate on the problem of evil between a tenured professor and a college freshman who's gone to a seminar on apologetics put on by Salt Company.

This debate will come down to Mr. Ham saying "God created the universe in six literal 24 hour periods" and Mr. Nye saying "how do we know that?" with Ham replying "because we don't know that he didn't," and Nye replying with "but we can't prove that he did," and Ham retorting with "but you can't prove that he didn't!"

It will go like that for a while, no intelligent discussion will be had, because the only discourse that Ham can deal in is hardline fundamentalism, which means on the opening salvo of questioning, he'll retreat to his bunker of faith, without the inclination or ability to even begin to argue for faith being a valid test of knowledge.

There's an argument to be had here; the god-based explanation versus the god-less explanation. There is an honest debate to be had here. Look up William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss or Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, just to get you started, if you want to see what this debate should look like.

I'm not watching this, because it's not a reasonable representation of the side of the debate that Bill Nye does not represent. It's a straw man using a respect-less clown rather than a valid opponent.
 
BooneCy said:
What? Maybe the first three books of the Bible, but the remaining close to 60 books is connected to historical places and events. King David and King Solomon did exist, and so did the events they describe. The New Testament is a collection of letters and first hand accounts of real events told by the people who witnessed them. Yes, there are prophetic books in the bible, Revelations, as an example. Psalms is literally translated as Songs, which are meant to be poetic. However, most of the bible is meant to be a chronicle or letters to believers of God/******.

To chime in on the co-existence of Faith and Science, I too believe it is quite possible. And, so did some of the greatest scientists the human race has ever known. I can start with Einstein and go much farther if needed.
Click to expand...
You'll need a better example: "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. ... " - Albert Einstein
 
To me, this debate characterized the difference between people who are driven by faith and people who are driven by what they can prove or is plausible based on empirical evidence.

Take things from the perspective of a Bible believing Christian. There exists an almighty and glorious God. This God has knowledge, wisdom, and understanding that far exceeds what we as humans have a capacity for. One of (if not the biggest) desires that God has for us is to have faith in him. If God wanted us to rely on faith and to choose whether or not we should believe in him, it then makes sense that we would not be able to prove his existence by the scientific methods that we know.

This perspective is obviously a problem when faced with evidence-driven scientific methods. Ken Ham spent a large portion of the night distinguishing between observable and historical science. I appreciated that he did this as it showed that many facets of science are non-divisive between people of both perspectives. It also accented the fundamental difference between the two groups, which Bill Nye seemed to imply would hold back scientists of a creationist perspective. This would be the aspects of the realm of historical science.

While we have no means of proving the origins of the universe, we do have some evidence that has led to different theories that contradict the historical account of the Bible. Does this mean that Christians are stupid for believing these accounts? Absolutely not, as their view of God is grand enough that it enables the things that are implausible to human logic to be accounted for. From a scientific driven worldview however, this is not sufficient, and is what gives rise to Nye's concerns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyismydog and CycloneErik
Gnomeborg said:
I'm going to chime in here with one post, and probably not read a lot of the replies.

I am a Christian. I started there, rejected my parent's religion based on evidence from philosophy and science, then, upon further investigation, came back to my belief in the metaphysical propositions of a monotheistic explanation for the existence of the universe in which we reside.

That being said, whether you believe in a God-directed explanation of existence or not, this is not a debate you should be interested in seeing. Bill Nye, while not being exceptionally accomplished in any scientific field other than edutainment, is actually a charismatic, educated man with a series background in science. Ken Ham, on the other hand, is not. This is a bit like watching a basketball game between Iowa State and Ames High School. Ken Ham does not have the ability or desire to present a cogent defense of a God-directed explanation of existence. Imagine a campus debate on the problem of evil between a tenured professor and a college freshman who's gone to a seminar on apologetics put on by Salt Company.

This debate will come down to Mr. Ham saying "God created the universe in six literal 24 hour periods" and Mr. Nye saying "how do we know that?" with Ham replying "because we don't know that he didn't," and Nye replying with "but we can't prove that he did," and Ham retorting with "but you can't prove that he didn't!"

It will go like that for a while, no intelligent discussion will be had, because the only discourse that Ham can deal in is hardline fundamentalism, which means on the opening salvo of questioning, he'll retreat to his bunker of faith, without the inclination or ability to even begin to argue for faith being a valid test of knowledge.

There's an argument to be had here; the god-based explanation versus the god-less explanation. There is an honest debate to be had here. Look up William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss or Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, just to get you started, if you want to see what this debate should look like.

I'm not watching this, because it's not a reasonable representation of the side of the debate that Bill Nye does not represent. It's a straw man using a respect-less clown rather than a valid opponent.
Click to expand...

This I will agree with.
 
I'm really impressed with the responses from both sides so far. This has been good to read because you are all thinking about it and not resorting to attacks. Thank you.
 
hiwhatis said:
To me, this debate characterized the difference between people who are driven by faith and people who are driven by what they can prove or is plausible based on empirical evidence.

Take things from the perspective of a Bible believing Christian. There exists an almighty and glorious God. This God has knowledge, wisdom, and understanding that far exceeds what we as humans have a capacity for. One of (if not the biggest) desires that God has for us is to have faith in him. If God wanted us to rely on faith and to choose whether or not we should believe in him, it then makes sense that we would not be able to prove his existence by the scientific methods that we know.

This perspective is obviously a problem when faced with evidence-driven scientific methods. Ken Ham spent a large portion of the night distinguishing between observable and historical science. I appreciated that he did this as it showed that many facets of science are non-divisive between people of both perspectives. It also accented the fundamental difference between the two groups, which Bill Nye seemed to imply would hold back scientists of a creationist perspective. This would be the aspects of the realm of historical science.

While we have no means of proving the origins of the universe, we do have some evidence that has led to different theories that contradict the historical account of the Bible. Does this mean that Christians are stupid for believing these accounts? Absolutely not, as their view of God is grand enough that it enables the things that are implausible to human logic to be accounted for. From a scientific driven worldview however, this is not sufficient, and is what gives rise to Nye's concerns.
Click to expand...
One interesting thing to note is that as Bill Nye mentioned, the idea of "observational science" and "historical science" is not an accepted concept. It's just a made up distinction so that people like Ham can say that both he and Bill Nye are using science, only Bill is using the weak kind of science that relies on looking at things in the past even though we weren't there, while Ham is using the better science by observing things that we can see like the bible.
 
Gnomeborg said:
There's an argument to be had here; the god-based explanation versus the god-less explanation. There is an honest debate to be had here. Look up William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss or Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, just to get you started, if you want to see what this debate should look like.

I'm not watching this, because it's not a reasonable representation of the side of the debate that Bill Nye does not represent. It's a straw man using a respect-less clown rather than a valid opponent.
Click to expand...

I think Nye is seeing that the creationism argument has been gaining ground in some facets of our country, and people like Ham have the ability to hoodwink naive individuals into thinking that it's not only faith-based, but completely rational as well. This is an attempt to stem the tide. If Nye is clever enough, he will not debate Ham directly, but rather plant the seed of critical thinking with his audience. That is real goal, IMO.
 
I think the other part that people ignore who dismiss religion using the creation story with reference to modern scientific theories is that although the bible is an account of god's creation of the universe, it was still written by man several thousand years ago. When humans had a much lesser understanding of...pretty much everything other than perhaps astronomy (and even then, their understanding was only what celestial bodies would show up when and where, not why). If you tried to explain the big bang to a person of that time, you'd have to spend years explaining the basic scientific principles behind it before you even got to the big bang itself. So how would we expect them to get a coherent book down, especially after probably centuries of oral tradition and all the errors that come from that practice?
 
00clone said:
I think the other part that people ignore who dismiss religion using the creation story with reference to modern scientific theories is that although the bible is an account of god's creation of the universe, it was still written by man several thousand years ago. When humans had a much lesser understanding of...pretty much everything other than perhaps astronomy (and even then, their understanding was only what celestial bodies would show up when and where, not why). If you tried to explain the big bang to a person of that time, you'd have to spend years explaining the basic scientific principles behind it before you even got to the big bang itself. So how would we expect them to get a coherent book down, especially after probably centuries of oral tradition and all the errors that come from that practice?
Click to expand...
Because god.
 
00clone said:
I think the other part that people ignore who dismiss religion using the creation story with reference to modern scientific theories is that although the bible is an account of god's creation of the universe, it was still written by man several thousand years ago. When humans had a much lesser understanding of...pretty much everything other than perhaps astronomy (and even then, their understanding was only what celestial bodies would show up when and where, not why). If you tried to explain the big bang to a person of that time, you'd have to spend years explaining the basic scientific principles behind it before you even got to the big bang itself. So how would we expect them to get a coherent book down, especially after probably centuries of oral tradition and all the errors that come from that practice?
Click to expand...

You could give a high-level explanation of the big bang to a 12 year-old in 5 minutes. People aren't smarter now than they were thousands of years ago, we just have more scientific knowledge that can pass from generation to generation. Understanding of the theory is immensely easier if you trust the source and scientific authority (i.e., haven't been ingrained with opposite thinking your whole life).
 
IAmNotTheMayor said:
I think Nye is seeing that the creationism argument has been gaining ground in some facets of our country, and people like Ham have the ability to hoodwink naive individuals into thinking that it's not only faith-based, but completely rational as well. This is an attempt to stem the tide. If Nye is clever enough, he will not debate Ham directly, but rather plant the seed of critical thinking with his audience. That is real goal, IMO.
Click to expand...

See, this could be. But Bill isn't exactly the right guy to be having this debate, either. He has a degree in mechanical engineering. And then he became a TV show host. His biggest accomplishments are in edutainment.

Also, by pulling Ken into a debate against a scientist, you're lending his side of the argument credence. Giving him legitimacy. It'd be like pulling David Icke into a debate about limiting government power. There may be a contingent that think he's got some good points about governmental abuse of power, but in the end, he still explains his reasoning with "they're also lizards from outerspace who live underground and breed with the most powerful families on the planet." That sort of invalidates anything that's being said....

What I'd be much more interested in seeing out of a debate involving Ken Ham would be Ken Ham vs. any actual christian scientist, debating whether "God Did It LALALALALALALALALA" head-in-the-sand-during-the-enlightenment arguments towards scientific literalism out of a non-scientific text is a valid course of thought.

I'd watch Ken Ham get steamrolled by William Lane Craig any day of the week.
 
Gnomeborg said:
See, this could be. But Bill isn't exactly the right guy to be having this debate, either. He has a degree in mechanical engineering. And then he became a TV show host. His biggest accomplishments are in edutainment.

Also, by pulling Ken into a debate against a scientist, you're lending his side of the argument credence. Giving him legitimacy. It'd be like pulling David Icke into a debate about limiting government power. There may be a contingent that think he's got some good points about governmental abuse of power, but in the end, he still explains his reasoning with "they're also lizards from outerspace who live underground and breed with the most powerful families on the planet." That sort of invalidates anything that's being said....

What I'd be much more interested in seeing out of a debate involving Ken Ham would be Ken Ham vs. any actual christian scientist, debating whether "God Did It LALALALALALALALALA" head-in-the-sand-during-the-enlightenment arguments towards scientific literalism out of a non-scientific text is a valid course of thought.

I'd watch Ken Ham get steamrolled by William Lane Craig any day of the week.
Click to expand...

That's a bit ridiculous. He is as good as any to be having the debate (though I might prefer Neal Degrasse Tyson). You seem to undermine what he has actually done in his career. Sure, he is best known for being the science guy, but he's got actual contributions to the boeing 747 and even one of the mars rovers, not to mention all the committees he has been a part of.
 
I think Ham used the debate to try to lure people into his made up world of off the wall, young Earth creationism, not to be confused with other types of creationism. While Nye used it as a platform to reach out to people, likely children, and try to get them excited or interested in the nature of science.
 
3TrueFans said:
I watched the whole thing after I replied, but that was still the argument they made.
Click to expand...

I think you were generalizing too much there and this also is a logical argument that uses scientific support.

The argument is that whatever begins to exist has cause. The universe began to exist which is what they were trying to prove with their scientific data. I don't think many atheists accept the fact the universe has been around forever, so I thought that part was a little useless. The conclusion is the universe had to be caused by something other than itself which they believe is G-d.
 
longtimeclone said:
I think you were generalizing too much there and this also is a logical argument that uses scientific support.

The argument is that whatever begins to exist has cause. The universe began to exist which is what they were trying to prove with their scientific data. I don't think many atheists accept the fact the universe has been around forever, so I thought that part was a little useless. The conclusion is the universe had to be caused by something other than itself which they believe is G-d.
Click to expand...
It was fairly scientific right up until that last part.
 
Whatever begins to exist has a cause -> The universe began to exist -> God created the Universe

I'm ok with the first two, less so on the third.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back