Bill Nye the Science Guy vs Ken Ham

[ydoaPs]

For those of you that don't know, tonight Bill Nye (the Science Guy) debated Ken Ham (YEC guy from the Kentucky 'Museum') on the topic of "Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?". If you missed it, you can watch it here.

 

Basic rundown:

 

1) Ken Ham failed to actually address the topic of the debate even once in the entire 3 hours.

2) Bill Nye hammered home that Ham's "model" fails to fit the evidence and fails to make predictions. That is, it not only is not a viable model, but it is not a model at all!

 

The most telling part of the debate, imo, was in the Q&A. When asked what would change his mind, Ham stood there for a few seconds with a deer in the headlights look and finally responded "My answer to that is I am a Christian". That is, he said literally nothing would change his mind. Nye, on the other hand, gave examples of evidence that would change his mind.

 

Did any of you watch it? What are your thoughts?

[John]

I think my favorite part was when Ken Ham said all scientific dating methods are fallible, but the eyewitness accounts recorded in the Bible are infallible. As I recall, Bill Nye had trouble really responding to Ken that time (but ultimately pulled it together), which is understandable.

The debate went better than I expected. I shared some of the doubts I'd read elsewhere regarding Bill's ability to handle a debate like this, but he did very well after all. Honestly, Ken did better than I expected him to as well, though of course his arguments were still pretty silly.

I didn't realize the YECs (or at least, Ken) had moved so close to actually accepting evolution. Of course, "fewer than a thousand 'kinds' evolved into millions of species within a few thousand years" isn't much better than "all species have always existed in their present forms," but it's something, I suppose.

I also had to cringe a few times when it seemed Bill's jokes fell flat.

It's unlikely that many minds were changed, but hopefully a few seeds were planted in a few minds and will force those few to reexamine their beliefs. I'm satisfied with how the debate went.

Edit: The Q&A had me worried for a bit as it seemed ready to essentially become an "I don't know" vs "It's in the Bible" exchange with not much substance, but fortunately that was ultimately averted for the most part.

Edited February 5, 2014 by John

[ydoaPs]

I actually thought Bill's jokes were funny (especially the inflation joke). I think the audience didn't understand them.

[Moontanman]

I watched it last night, I thought Bill did a good job, his honesty was impeccable and he did a great job of explaining his stance and why it was a viable and why Ken's stance was not. Ken was his usual dishonest misleading self, I could do a better job of supporting creation than he could but he has boxed himself into an untenable position that cannot be supported honestly by evidence and only asserted as faith and belief. Sad that the theists who went to see it, I know several, were convinced Ken Ham is the salt of the earth and Bill Nye was satans slave... It just makes me cringe to think this guy made money off this... money he will use to promote his outlandish lies and misdirection to line his own pockets with money...

 

I thought Bill missed a few chances to highlight Ken's dishonest stance, the idea that nothing in astronomy points to a universe older than 6000 years is astonishingly dishonest and easily shown to be questionable just by the expanse of the universe and fact that we can see it..

[imatfaal]

Damn - I was smugly thinking this was an American problem; yet the first two flat-earthers are from Oz and the UK.

[Moontanman]

Damn - I was smugly thinking this was an American problem; yet the first two flat-earthers are from Oz and the UK.

 

 

I think it's becoming apparent its everyone's problem, people like Ken Ham and his fundamentalist ilk are making amazing inroads into our culture by preying on people most basic fears and by lies and misdirection. I honestly think it's a big problem and will only get bigger as the government increasingly embraces these people.

 

Ken Ham's Creation Museum was at least partially funded by the State of Kentucky... States are increasingly taking funding from public schools and allowing religious schools to straight up teach creationism as viable alternative. It's crazier than people think, especially here in the deep south, it's difficult to find people who don't think the Bible is literally true, I think many doesn't understand why this cannot be true or choose to ignore the disconnect but at the end of the day these people given a chance would merge our government with religion in heart beat,,,

[Greg H.]

 

...I think many doesn't understand why this cannot be true or choose to ignore the disconnect but at the end of the day these people given a chance would merge our government with religion in heart beat,,,

I wonder, in the case they are successful, if we could flee to another country and claim asylum from religious persecution.

[EdEarl]

 

I thought Bill missed a few chances to highlight Ken's dishonest stance, the idea that nothing in astronomy points to a universe older than 6000 years is astonishingly dishonest and easily shown to be questionable just by the expanse of the universe and fact that we can see it..

The most direct evidence of the Earth being older than 6000 years is found in tree rings (counted back to about 10,000 years) and ice core layers (counted back to about 100,000 years), which biblical fundamentalists ignore. How a person can ignore evidence they can see with their eyes and maybe a magnifying glass, and believe myth instead never fails to amaze and perplex me. It make me doubt we are an intelligent species.

[imatfaal]

I think it's becoming apparent its everyone's problem, people like Ken Ham and his fundamentalist ilk are making amazing inroads into our culture by preying on people most basic fears and by lies and misdirection. I honestly think it's a big problem and will only get bigger as the government increasingly embraces these people.

 

Ken Ham's Creation Museum was at least partially funded by the State of Kentucky... States are increasingly taking funding from public schools and allowing religious schools to straight up teach creationism as viable alternative. It's crazier than people think, especially here in the deep south, it's difficult to find people who don't think the Bible is literally true, I think many doesn't understand why this cannot be true or choose to ignore the disconnect but at the end of the day these people given a chance would merge our government with religion in heart beat,,,

 

I was genuinely shocked to see a Bristol University don cropping up in the creationist section. It seems 59 schools in the UK accepted for use a teaching pack from "Truth in Science" (now there's a name that needs to be investigated under the Trades Descriptions Act) - who are the group of flat-earthers that Stuart Burgess works with - now that is against the national curriculum if it is in science lessons. It's not a significant group - but it is definitely 59 schools too many!

 

The most direct evidence of the Earth being older than 6000 years is found in tree rings (counted back to about 10,000 years) and ice core layers (counted back to about 100,000 years), which biblical fundamentalists ignore. How a person can ignore evidence they can see with their eyes and maybe a magnifying glass, and believe myth instead never fails to amaze and perplex me. It make me doubt we are an intelligent species.

 

Quite Agree Ed. I won't go as far as saying it is a mental illness (we have all been there, read the thread, and got the t-shirt) - but how does an intelligent man - a doctor of engineering, well respected in his field etc. deal with the facts? Does he believe that the dendrochronologists are wrong, that they are lying, or that stuff older than 6000 years is some form of historical-scenery created to give us false temporal depth?

 

For crying out loud - I spent my summer holiday in a town that was founded 9 000-10 000 years ago! The archaeology is remarkably clear for such an ancient site - does Prof Burgess really think all his colleagues at the Dept. of Archaeology and Anthropology are barking, or charlatans, or just bad academics. And just for giggles it is fun to point out that the word bible itself comes (through a decent chain of connexions ) from the name of the town I stayed in.

I wonder, in the case they are successful, if we could flee to another country and claim asylum from religious persecution.

Precedent has been set in the UK - that atheists who are persecuted due to their lack of faith have successfully claimed asylum under the UNHCR. Being an SF.Ner could become a mark of infamy, something only discussed in hushed tones; you only need another push to the right and this time the House Committee on Un-American Activities will be looking for scientists under the bed!

[CharonY]

On a slightly related note, I wonder how a debate between Ken Ham and a Catholic scientist such as the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne would have gone.

Edited February 5, 2014 by CharonY

[john5746]

For the Ham followers, it would be more effective to have someone who at least claims to be Christian, of course they can always think he isn't a "true" Christian. Its obvious that nothing will make Ham admit he is wrong.

 

It looks as though Nye's main purpose was to reach the silent fundi-moderates who have doubts, but don't want to admit it. Not sure how many of them will watch.

 

It really is exasperating to witness such willful stupidity. So many points could be brought up, but it doesn't matter - they just want their belief.

 

Damn - I was smugly thinking this was an American problem; yet the first two flat-earthers are from Oz and the UK.

Yeah, we are hypnotized by the accent.

Edited February 5, 2014 by john5746

[imatfaal]

On a slightly related note, I wonder how a debate between Ken Ham and a Catholic scientist such as the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne would have gone.

 

Debates tend to go badly against Jesuits. I would have paid good money to see Ham forced to debate with my old school chaplain Fr Nin McNamara SJ (since passed away) - an ardent Catholic, Oxford DD, and huge defender of Science and reason.

[Bill Angel]

On a slightly related note, I wonder how a debate between Ken Ham and a Catholic scientist such as the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne would have gone.

 

Good point. Another Catholic scientist worthy of interest and respect is George Lemaitre, who died in 1966. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

 

The Catholic church has certainly come a long way from the days when it persecuted Galileo and burned Giordano Bruno at the stake.

[Greg H.]

For the Ham followers, it would be more effective to have someone who at least claims to be Christian, of course they can always think he isn't a "true" Christian. Its obvious that nothing will make Ham admit he is wrong.

 

Will Pat Robertson do?

 

Pat Robertson Implores Ken Ham to Not Make a Fool of Christians

[For Prose]

I wonder if the scientific community might try a tactic commonly used against those who seek out negative attention. Ignore them and not feed them what they desire. While I feel Nye to be 100% accurate in his fight against archaic ways of thinking, at the end of the day, if the debate is not among scientists debating science, why even bother?

 

In my early twenties, I was very passionate about my anti-religious views. Now that I am older, I feel it to be a bit pointless. Almost as pointless as arguing politics. I of course know there are those who disagree with me, but I find much more joy in arguing science vs science and not science vs rubbish (especially when the rubbish is justified by faith).

[Ringer]

I wonder if the scientific community might try a tactic commonly used against those who seek out negative attention. Ignore them and not feed them what they desire. While I feel Nye to be 100% accurate in his fight against archaic ways of thinking, at the end of the day, if the debate is not among scientists debating science, why even bother?

Because it's not a debate about what science is correct, we already know that so scientist vs. scientist does nothing to educate the public. The purpose for these debates is to show people who may never have heard what science actually is what science is all about, and why Creationism isn't science. It's about planting the seed of curiosity, not to 'prove' evolution is true.

 

In my early twenties, I was very passionate about my anti-religious views. Now that I am older, I feel it to be a bit pointless. Almost as pointless as arguing politics. I of course know there are those who disagree with me, but I find much more joy in arguing science vs science and not science vs rubbish (especially when the rubbish is justified by faith).

Again, it's not about being anti-religious, it's about being pro-science. I have never argued with a Creationist actually thinking I would change their mind, I argue with Creationists so the people listening can see how much rubbish it is.

[EdEarl]

At one time, people would only speak for science when they were old and near death, because they faced being burned at the stake if they spoke against the church's teachings. Now we have the right to speak out without facing the inquisition and death; thus, it is our duty to do so, so that others will learn science and rational thought. We will not convert those who blindly follow their faith, but some will hear and slowly, generation by generation, more people learn to think for themselves, rather than faithfully following a myth.

[michel123456]

I am afraid that the majority of people visiting this internet creationist site will not take the time to follow the debate.

 

The only thing that matters is that it shows that creationists are not afraid to debate with top scientists. That's what (lets say) 90% of visitors will understand.

From the rest of 10%, even if 90% are pro-science, that is only 0,09% of the audience.

 

Creationists win, no matter the result of the debate.

[For Prose]

I argue with Creationists so the people listening can see how much rubbish it is.

Well put Ringer. I have not thought about it like that before.

 

Does this mean that you restrain yourself when faced with an argument with an individual? If so, other than simply ignoring them, what is your response to avoid even conversing about the subject?

 

I live in the dirty south where Creationism runs rampant. I say this only because the subject comes up quite frequently.

 

At my university, I have to force myself to refrain from going to Philosophy Club meetings. The few times I have been, I have been the only one in the room who even really questions the existence of a higher being... In a philosophical setting...

 

This is part of the reason I have sought out others to talk to about these things, even if it means not getting the pleasure of doing it face to face.

[Moontanman]

I was a little surprised Pat Robertson came out and said Ken should stop embarrassing Christians, talking them out of being theists is a lost cause but asking them not to support dishonest conmen like Ken Ham is the right thing to do and the tactic I usually take on face book...

[SlavicWolf]

At one time, people would only speak for science when they were old and near death, because they faced being burned at the stake if they spoke against the church's teachings. Now we have the right to speak out without facing the inquisition and death; thus, it is our duty to do so, so that others will learn science and rational thought. We will not convert those who blindly follow their faith, but some will hear and slowly, generation by generation, more people learn to think for themselves, rather than faithfully following a myth.

The Church never opposed science as you describe it. Burning people en masse is a protestant invention.

 

The popular view that the Church was bad and then Reformation came and made Christianity humanitarian and good is wrong. Protestants were in many ways more backward and murderous than the Church. They still are - biblical literalism is a direct consequence of the view that people have the right to interpret a book of fables as they wish... And we have churches claiming that the earth is a 6000 years old flat disc or that people should burn at stakes for having extramaritial sex. Neither Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox have such insane beliefs and they never had.

Edited February 7, 2014 by SlavicWolf

[Moontanman]

The Church never opposed science as you describe it. Burning people en masse is a protestant invention.

 

The popular view that the Church was bad and then Reformation came and made Christianity humanitarian and good is wrong. Protestants were in many ways more backward and murderous than the Church. They still are - biblical literalism is a direct consequence of the view that people have the right to interpret a book of fables as they wish... And we have churches claiming that the earth is a 6000 years old flat disc or that people should burn at stakes for having extramaritial sex. Neither Catholics nor Eastern Orthodox have such insane beliefs and they never had.

 

 

Horse feathers, ever hear of The Inquisition?

[EdEarl]

 

Wikipedia

The Inquisition was a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat the spread of religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. This Medieval Inquisition persisted into the 14th century, and from the 1250s was associated with the Dominican Order. In the early 14th century, two other movements attracted the attention of the Inquisition, the Knights Templar and the Beguines.

Christian witch hunts resulted in an unknown, estimated 35,000, executions.

 

I did not claim there were executions for opposing the flat Earth theory. The 6000 year old earth is a protestant calculation, not Catholic.

 

Copernicus book about heleocentrism was published after his death. Galileo was arrested by the Catholic Church for agreeing with Copernicus. Giordano Bruno, a Dominican monk, was found guilty by an inquisition of heresy for supporting heleocentrism.

[iNow]

As seems unfortunately common, we again have a theist making remedially debunked claims and making arguments rooted in cherry picking and revisionist history alone.

[Didymus]

IMO, bills original YouTube video that spawned this debate was horribly rude and unprofessional... I had lost a lot of respect for him... But, in the debate, he seemed more in control of himself. I respect that bill made at least some effort to touch on some of the actual points made... At least better than most.

 

As for ken... I was pretty disappointed. It seemed like he was just a less charismatic, less prepared version of Kent hovind. All of his points have been made more fluently in the past by his tax evading predicessor.

 

As for he debate... I would have liked to have seen bill expand a bit more on the winter/summer layers of ice a bit more. Personally, I don't doubt it, but I can freeze a bottle of water overnight and get a dozen visible layers. I'm curious what is interpreted as a summer/winter cycle.

 

Likewise, ken claimed that different dating methods, each considered reliable, often wildly disagree. He gave two examples, but not enough.

 

bill did step in a few times when he said that just one example of a few things could change his mind and ham failed to cite Plenty of examples of polystrate fossiles doing exactly what bill said was impossible. And modern human tools found in coal dated hundreds of thousands of years in the past. Also, when bill claimed that Noah was obviously an amature at woodworking, ken could have pointed out that, a woodworker with a decade of experience is more efficient than a novice. A woodworker with 20 years of experience will be considerably better.... If the story were accurate, Noah was hundreds of years old in a generation that gave him a couple hundred more healthy years to live... That would insinuate him being pretty experienced at his craft. No one said there were no lakes in those days, so boat building may have already been a science... And it was said that people could grow to giant proportions then. Beyond that, the instructions were said to be given by God. If he could create the universe, he could tell a burly dude with hundreds of years of experience how to build a boat.

 

 

 

To be fair, I'm a Christian too and not all Christians are young earth creationists. The best point bill made was that Ken's viewpoint wasn't even necessarily that of all religious people... Just his interpretation of the bible according to his preferred translation.

 

A few points I would argue with against ken:

One can believe in the bible and see that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth. It goes on to say what he did on earth, but gives NO indication that the "6 days" started when he started creating things. He could have spent a billion years on each galaxy for all we know, then at some point 6,000 years ago, began focusing on earth.

 

Even then, each "day" isn't necessarily 24 hours. The bible uses the same word for "day" when talking about God's sense of time... That from the perspective of a universal energy being, a thousand years is like a day, yet a day is like a thousand years. Each day was simply a "step" taken.... How long it took or exactly how he did it is not even hinted at. Therefore trees being 10,000 years old isn't a problem for all creationists... Just Yec.

 

Also, the bible never said that -nothing- died until humans sinned. Human sin was the beginning of human death. Dinosaurs could have eaten each other for millions of years before Adam was around.

 

 

The flood also could have been on a smaller scale.... WhiIe I could buy a worldwide flood assuming a major geological event such s major oceanic trenches closing, causing the water to rise significantly... I've always suspected that Noah lived in the valley that is now the mediterranian sea. I'm guessing that valley used to be blocked off, after a big rain, the natural dam broke allowing the ocean to flow in, flooding as far as Noah could see.

 

I'd like to see Bill Nye debate a creationist that isn't Yec.