 |
|
|
|
 Bill Nye and Ken Ham will debate the origins of life Tuesday at the Creation Museum.
February 3rd, 2014
01:15 PM ET
Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationismEditors note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on February 4 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be livestreamed at CNN.com at 7 pm ET, and Piers Morgan Live will interview Ham and Nye on Tuesday at 9 ET. WATCH TUESDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream1.html Opinion by Ken Ham, special to CNN (CNN) - Public debates on evolution and creation have become increasingly rare. Several hundred well-attended debates were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades. So I look forward to a spirited yet cordial debate on Tuesday with Bill Nye, the "Science Guy" of television fame. I also look forward to the opportunity to help counter the general censorship against creationists' view of origins. While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution. Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science. As a former science instructor, I have appreciated the useful television programs that he hosted and produced, especially when he practiced operational science in front of his audience. He and I both recognize the wonderful benefits that observational, operational science has brought us, from cell phones to space shuttles. But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory. For students, the evolution-creation discussion can be a useful exercise, for it can help develop their critical thinking skills. MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm Debating Ken Ham Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them. Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations. Nye, the host of a popular TV program for children, should welcome a scrutiny of evolution in the classrooms. As evolution-creation issues continue to be in the news - whether it relates to textbook controversies or our debate - there is an increasingly bright spotlight on the research activities of thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide who have earned doctorates and are creationists. On our full-time staff at Answers in Genesis, we have Ph.D.s in astronomy, geology, biology, molecular genetics, the history of science, and medicine. Yes, creationists are still a small minority in the scientific community, but they hold impressive credentials and have made valuable contributions in science and engineering. I remember the time I spoke at a lunchtime Bible study at the Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington. I was thrilled to meet several scientists and engineers who accept the book of Genesis as historical and reject Darwinian evolution. They shared with me that a belief in evolution had nothing to do with their work on the Hubble Space Telescope. Why should our perspective about origins be censored? Our young people — and adults — should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution. It’s an important debate, for what you think about your origins will largely form your worldview. If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority. Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans. Ken Ham is founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis (USA) and founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The views expressed in this column belong to Ham. soundoff (4,336 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next »
Next entry »Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken Ham
« Previous entryA father’s dilemma: Is watching football immoral?
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
god should have been cleaning up the universe instead of resting. All those meteors and such now a danger.
I suppose that is proof enough that a perfect creator had zero to do with this.
Galactic Vacuum Cleaner. SPACEBALLS!
God will use those meteors to destroy us if we continue to stray for the path of righteousness. He's just saving them to smite us when the time comes....(not!).
I see, people make stuff up for their god. Cool, that would mean god needs excuses.
No. People make up excuses for their God.
Which regime you prefer?
A religious regime formed by born agains or Catholics, and burning or decapitating any one that doesn't follow what they believe?
Or an atheist regime, were they will kill or deport religious people, and anyone opposed to its ideology?
What a stupid question. You're a really incompetent troll.
you are confused. Religions and dictators are quite the same, they both love to control, create stories they expect you to believe and use threats to make you believe.
Let's not forget both have caused more destruction to mankind.
Atheist dictators are ruthless.
So are religious dictators.
Totalitarian dictators can be ruthless – you have Franco, Hitler, various kings in Europe as examples. Communist regimes did not kill for their religious beliefs.
Atheists are capable of committing the same atrocities as religious people. In fact atheist dictators have been at the lead of some of the most brutal and inhumane regimes in history.
All dictators are ruthless, it's how they get the ti-tle.
"hear both sides of the origins issue". Why only two sides. Why not all of the other beliefs, i.e. Hindu, Tao, Buddist, Aborigines.
This is exactly why the debate is meaningless, It basically invalidates any other creation story other than the Biblical account.
I really wish Nye wouldn't do this. It completely detracts from the serious work being done to contribute to the overall theory of evolution, and it's credibility. I already see how this is going. Every time this creationist brings up some little gap in the record of scientific knowledge and Nye is forced to say "well we don't know that for certain yet, but research is ongoing", then this god-boy will jump on it like a monkey on a doughnut and tout it like some kind of champion defeat of the evil scientist and his "theories." I hate Flat Earther's.
LOL, this isn't fair. Bill is obviously going to win.
He may win the debate but the war still rages, a LOSING war for non believers. Only those who BELIEVE will see it through to the end. Idiots.
LOL, educate yourself. Man created the gods. Not the other way around.
Ah, the threats begin. The last resort of the desperate.
Do some reading before you post. Religion is declining, not increasing.
" Idiots" Says the guy who believes in magical sky genies.
So where is Topher now to question an atheist for calling out an ad hominem attack perpetrated by a theist?
i don't think he can win, when the opposing argument is that "god did it" or "god said it." the only thing he can do is throw up his hands, imo. you can't really argue with someone's faith and expect to get somewhere.
the other person who responded to your comment helps me rest my case. there's no reasoning.
Well, you could explain how faith in general is wrong.
Well, unless you apply your faith to absolutely everything in your life, it makes you a hypocrite, at least. So, either pray to the deity of your choice for absolutely every descision you make, which amounts to you being barely able to make it out the front door on any given day, or just take on faith everything that anybody would ever say, offer, sell to you.
So, yeah, faith can be a bad thing and that's not even taking into consideration the kind of faith that allows a fool to blow themselves up, or murder a doctor.
If you want to teach creationism in schools along with evolution (or at least present is as an alternative to evolution), then how about we teach evolution as an alternative to creationism in Sunday school?
Sounds fair
I will NOT tolerate creationism in Sunday school at my UU congregation.
^ Oh and this!
yay UU!!
While i understand your logic, it is FAR more inherently dangerous for schools to teach this tripe rather than it be taught in sunday school
If you want creationism taught in schools, then it's only fair to teach all the different creation myths, not just the Judeo-Christian myth.
I may be wrong, but I think that analogy would only work if Sunday School was held in a Public School, since the subject was education. But that's not very likely these days.
I still want to know how they would teach creationism in public schools without mentioning God or the Bible.
Hmm, interesting idea. So, you're saying all children will be made to go to Sunday School just like they are required to attend public schools. Yes, I see.
Most religions, Christians in particular, are very egotistical. To think that in a universe full of trillions upon trillions worlds, God would take time out of his schedule to care about you and your life. Whats wrong with evolution? Its just adaptation over millions of years. People breed dogs to adapt to certain conditions and yet they don't believe in evolution.
That recent gene study shows that people have today have 3 percent or less neanderthal DNA. But yet, neanderthals couldn't adapt and died off (or did they since they are alive in all of us? :P). Survival of the fittest, not survival of those God favors.
So, since no one that is alive today, including current scientist and scholars, were around to see what "neanderthals" were really like, why do you assume they were so much different than us. Just because they were taller or broader overall or maybe had bigger heads or even were harrier, doesn't somehow make them non-human. If you use that argument then you can easily slip into someone who does appear the way I think they should is not truly human. So, neanderthals did not morph into some different create.
As a Christian, I don't have a problem saying that we adapt to our situation and backgrounds. If you do hard physical labor your whole life vs. doing mental work your whole life, chances are in most, if not all cases, the person who did hard physical labor is going to look rougher around the edges. Just as a small example, my dad is a blue collar worker and has been his entire life. Since I have been working aside from one summer job, I primarily have worked at a computer in an office. My dad always jokes with me that I have what he calls "Palmolive hands", whereas his are rougher. Just like neanderthals had harder lives, they did have more physically demanding lifestyles vs. our sit behind a computer and let technology do it's thing lifestyle. My point is that adapting to your situation and your lifestyle is a completely different thing then saying one animal turned into a completely different animal through evolution. It is different thing entirely to say that monkeys and tadpoles are my ancestors.
"neanderthals couldn't adapt and died off" Also, by the way neanderthals dying off is in your perception (which is apart of why we can't come together on things is because everyone debates based off their perception of things and refuses to see things from another prospective) neanderthals is a term that we gave to early humans that were shaped a little differently than we currently are, but the point is they are still human and humans stil exist today so humans did not die off....the stigma that you are associating with the term "neanderthal" may have died off.
Cant we all just get along? Really, no really?
I mean come on, its 2014 and we are all sitting here whining and complaining about each others side. Trying to put each other down and make the other side feel like a moron or someone with a learning disability for whatever they believe is the correct train of thought. Its just plain stupid. If we were really as advanced thinking as we like to think and claim, we would openly support and allow alternate teachings on the different matters here and allow the properly educated individual to make up their own minds.
Personally don't have a problem with you believing whatever you think is the right thing. I just have problems with others trying to down talk me for what I believe and consider to be the correct line of thinking.
Its all just a little bit childish don't you think?
All the best,
Nate
Well we're Humans so the short answer is no
You are completely free to believe whatever you want to believe in, but try to teach my kid that 2+2=-1,234,984.29875 and we have a very big problem. Creationism and religion have as much right to be taught in school as a credible theory as Mein Kampf.
Seems like this debate will not be carried on CNN. Too bad.
Tax codes too ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUXQatryNw
Thanks for the video. Non-believers are finally getting voice on the Internet and are getting organized. Now people realize that they are not alone with doubts.
Author says "In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations." Ah I'll give you the second part of this statment but not the first. Talking about what is natural, what we can observe and feel in real time, and discussing science and its theories, is not religion. It's not even remotely like organized religion.
So, I am pretty sure it wasn't our "infallible creator" who wrote the bible, correct? I'm pretty sure that it was a fallible human that put quill to paper on that one. Basing your entire belief system on a hope that the people who wrote the bible weren't just making stuff up seems kinda irresponsible to me.
GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.
Hmmmmm. something smells contradictory here.
Nice try, Alias. Unfortunately, some of us actually know our Bibles. I'm not surprised that you misquote the scriptures to validate your misguided attempt to mock God. Judges chapter 1:19 says, The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron." No where does it say "together they couldn't defeat the plainsmen." What the Bible explains is that the men of Judah were afraid of the chariots and didn't fully trust God to give them victory so they gave up the fight. God did not lose, the people of Judah didn't believe so they failed to get their full inheritance in the promised land. To put it more simply, there's a saying that fits here..."you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
I bet if your favorite team lost a game you'd blame, at least in part, the coach.
@JP – "No where does it say "together they couldn't defeat the plainsmen." What the Bible explains is that the men of Judah were afraid of the chariots and didn't fully trust God to give them victory so they gave up the fight. God did not lose, the people of Judah didn't believe so they failed to get their full inheritance in the promised land. "
Where in the book of Judges is this mentioned?
Keep in mind that the concept of Christian faith relies entirely on what is written in the Bible is relatively modern. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the Bible was used in support of faith, not as the basis of faith. Also, I would point out that even relatively early Christians like Saint Augustine (circa late fourth early fifth century) warned of the dangers of treating the Bible as a Natural History text.
One day I would like to see The USA have an atheist regime like they had in Russia with Stalin, and in North Korea with Kim Un!
Yes! Maybe then we could FINALLY wipe out all religious zealots and their ridiculous ideologies.
Oppressing religion doesn't reduce its hold on people; it strengthens it. In Europe, religious governments forced their views on people. In those countries, fewer people believe in God than in the U.S.
Ahh, this old tired argument again?
I think you mean "Communist regime".
Those regimes were not atheist based. They were communist based. Atheism is not a political system. On the other side of he argument, can you name a good theocracy from history? I thought not.
They don't Believe in God... Contrary to hitler that was actually a catholic!
Why don't you just cut out the middle man and move to Iraq, where you can experience a theocracy in all its glory?
On a Bill Moyers show (PBS)he mentioned that there will be an updated "Cosmos" program on the National Geographic channel in March. This is from the BM site:
"Starting in March, Tyson will host a new, updated version of the hit PBS television series Cosmos, which made the late Carl Sagan a household name. This time the new series, Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, comes courtesy of the National Geographic Channel and Fox TV."
For those who were around at the original time of Cosmos this was a ground breaking presentation for television which emphasized the naturalness of the universe. I am looking forward to this and I am sure that many of the posters here will want to tune in.
Why do belief in God and belief in evolution have to be exclusive? I believe in both
Good for you. Stating your beliefs without trying to convert others is something I wish more people would do.
I, however, will place science front and center over anything from the creationists.
They don't have to be exclusive at all, but it makes for better debate and people can get on their high horses.
It is the creationists, who feel the need to inject their ideologies into the whatever science field, where they have no business being in the first place.
They feel threatened by the science which has replaced religious explanations with real world scientific discoveries that better explain.
" instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution."
Without invoking any theology? I doubt that.
Theology isn't reality. Science is!
Science to you is faith based. You don't have the knowledge or tools to test the many theories for yourself. But you have faith in what the scientists tell you. (And a lot of those scientists you learn about are religious!)
No science is evidence based. I do not have faith, I have reasonable expectations and there is difference. Approximately only 8% are religious...that is not a lot.
You obviously do not comprehend what a scientific theory is or you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment.
Every human being uses faith. Unless you actually perform the tests and see the results with your own eyes, you are demonstrating you have faith in what other people have told you.
33% of scientists believe in God. 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. 41% don't believe in either.
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
You're trying to equate two different definitions of faith, which is fallacious.
Wrong. We DO have the tools to test many of the theories and see them in action everyday. Simplistically, the theory of gravity is still just a theory because we cannot disprove it in every part of the universe, so it is just a theory, yet we see it in action constantly. Not so with religion. At all. Your argument is made of straw.
Faith is faith. Most scientists will admit they use faith.
David,
I appreciate and use science. But I have to admit I haven't actually tested many of the theories and explanations we have. But I have faith in the work of other people.
So I'm saying TruthPrevails exercises faith when she talks about science. She hasn't actually seen or demonstrated most of the scientific tests that she accepts.
That is faith.
I too think it is "delicious"
No, faith is not faith. That's like asserting that a person who says he loves his wife is doing the exact same thing as a person who says he loves ice cream: same word, different usages. Religious faith is belief in the absence of proof. "Faith" in scientists using the scientific method is a confidence or trust based on the demonstrated validity of their methodology. There's certainly no reason to accept blindly though. We can examine their peer reviewed evidence if we feel the need. No amount of examination is going to yield legitimate, peer reviewed evidence for your god.
Not all religious faith is belief without proof. And it is definitely not described that way in the Bible.
As an undergraduate, I had an excellent course in the history and philosophy of science that attempted to address (a small part of the course, admittedly) exactly this issue. The textbook on creation science actually made some sense until the end; it cited several problems in the current state of evolutionary science, specifically the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution. These problems have since been at least partially resolved, and unfortunately, the argument for creation science was much less well constructed than the argument against evolution. However, I think there is value in at least understanding the other perspective. A similar argument I would like to be able to spend time on is how moral constructs are created. Physical science then has to give way to social science (my assumption, of course, and part of why I would like to be able to spend some time to really learn this topic), and the frontier between social science and religion is a lot less sharp than that between physical sciences and religion.
Man, this is going to be irritating. Both sides will make their usual points and then videos will show up with the predictable headlines declaring, "Our guy owns/trashes/destroys their guy." No minds will change and nobody will be any the wiser. Zzzzzzzzzz..........
"Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans."
I guess you missed the part where the bible was written, compiled, translated, edited, and passed down by fallible humans.
Wait... you're saying it wasn't direct from the hand of god?
that's EXACTLY what he's not saying..or is...idk anything, but hey, it's the interwebs...i might be a turtle for all i know
NU 33:38 Aaron died on Mt. Hor.
DT 10:6 Aaron died in Mosera.
NU 33:41-42 After Aaron's death, the Israelites journeyed from Mt. Hor, to Zalmonah, to Punon, etc.
DT 10:6-7 It was from Mosera, to Gudgodah, to Jotbath.
Not to mention the KJB has been revised over 75 times in the last 120 years - by men - vying to increase their share of the ever shrinking pool of sheep.
That statement by Ham shows an absolutely closed mind. What is the point of pointing out to these creationists that their is evidence that they are wrong, it doesn't work. See Topher, L4H, fred, Saint LofA and the others of their ilk for confirmation. A futile exercise, god did it Ham will say, take a bow and might as well just walk off of the stage.
God is indeed the author of the Bible. It was copied (written down) by a person, but the actual content of the book is from The Lord (thus you hear of people referring to the Bible as the "inspired word of God"). For instance, the words of this post belong to me – I'm the author, even if somebody else types the text on the computer to make this message board post.
Creationism isn't science. It isn't even "like" science. It isn't based on observation, it isn't testable, it isn't nullable, and it's openly inconsistent with things we know about the world around us. I can't fathom how anybody could present creationism as something more noble than religious denial. Without a religious book like the Bible motivating desperate believers to contort logic and evidence, nobody would ever construct such obvious nonsense.
I've reworded your paragraph to be slightly more correct:
------
EVOLUTIONISM isn't science. It isn't even "like" science. It isn't based on observation, it isn't testable, it isn't nullable, and it's openly inconsistent with things we know about the world around us. I can't fathom how anybody could present EVOLUTIONISM as something more noble than denial OF THE OBVIOUS. Without a BIAS AGAINST GOD'S WORD motivating desperate UNBELIEVERS to contort logic and evidence, nobody would ever construct such obvious nonsense.
------
Except that the description of steps involved in the creation of the earth in the first few verses of Genesis exactly describe the evolution that science has determined took place in forming our planet. The stumbling block for those who reject scripture is just the fact that it is scripture. The stumbling block for some creationists is that, in their minds, the process took a few 24-hour days. Never mind that the first "day" cycle was established only after a lot had happened to create the planet! There shouldn't be a controversy regarding this subject, and it shouldn't determine the status of one's faith. It's a lot easier to argue about these things than it is to take the more important message of forgiveness and apply it to one's own life. What's the goal? Salvation and eternal life. But the "age" of the earth does nothing to forward that goal. So both sides are missing the point.
I believe that God is the greatest scientist of all. I believe that he used science to help create this world and that a day to God is different that a mans day. I also believe that he uses evolution to deal with conditions on the ground which is why we shouldnt be afraid of of climate change. I believe that the earth and its atmosphere has been changing since its creation.
Now just tell us which god and provide the evidence for that gods existence and we won't have to tell you that your ignorance is laughable.
Wow, someone I actually agree with.
Where God and evolution meet is the Big Bang. Something started the whole ball rolling and right now science cant determine what that was. Why not God?
Why god? (Which god?) What good reason is there? God is an unnecessary condition. There is every reason to think that there is a natural explanation behind everything, because we've found natural explanations for everything so far. If science said "why not god?", it would never progress. We would be stuck with antiquated views of everything, the age of the Earth, for example.
Why not me. I'm god because i said so. im magic. disprove me. oh wait, you cant.
Nice rationalization, but climate change is the result of free will decisions based on the acquisition of material wealth. If you want to see a great flood, just step back and watch it come. If you believe in god, how can you refuse to accept our role as a steward of the earth; a role in which we are failing.
"I also believe that he uses evolution to deal with conditions on the ground which is why we shouldnt be afraid of of climate change."
Evolution can't keep up with the pace of modern climate change. Basically, you are saying that you're okay if we end up with radically different ecosystems, plant and animal diversity, and the like. As for me, I find it disgusting the legacy that we are leaving for future generations.
Mr. Ham does his best to sound reasonable but his view of Creationism runs counter to basic tenets of physics, chemistry, biology, geology and other sciences. His comment about the "a religion of naturalism" is absurd. Religion is based on beliefs. Science is based on observation and empirical evidence. I can't imagine anything much more destructive to the future of this country than trying to convince our children to abandon science for his religious beliefs.
Could not have said it better myself.
Religion is based on faith – belief without proof.
Right, but they produce pseudo-science which purports to refute cosmology, evolution, etc. A lot of people are heavily invested in church and religion – those that run them generally get great financial benefit (include tax exempt status) and others are convinced that a supernatural being is carefully crafting their success.