 |
|
|
|
 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.  |
|
|
|
Believe what you want, but keep your religion out of our classrooms. Public school is not church. If you want to talk about creationism, that's fine. Do it at home or in church.
What if I oppose my kids being taught evolution as the only answer? Same could be said for you. Believe what you want but keep your biased views out of the classroom. Wouldn't make more sense to provide both views and let people decide for themselves?
There are more than two views.
Should every creation myth from every religion be given equal time in a Science classroom?
"The vast majority of scientists agree that electrons have a negative electromagnetic charge. However, some few believe that electrons are made of Jell-O. We want you, the students, to be aware of this controversy."
This comment is precisely the problem I have with lazy "thinkers". Reducing something to the absurd does not promote debate or understanding. It is simply a childish attempt to discredit a stance. Works on the elementary school playground dude but not amongst adults.
@steelerguin
The Christian creation myth IS absurd, and it would require turning all fields of natural science including chemistry, geology, biology, and physics on their heads to make it fit with what we know about the world.
I've left other comments - you can search them out if you wish. What I find lazy is the assertion that science states that "evolution is the only answer". That's a preposterous notion - what "science" provides is a large set of data and explanation by which "it" believes that evolutionary theory is the best natural explanation for observed phenomena. The Scientific Method has corrective mechanisms to help tweak or even discard theories whose predictive capabilities don't match observed phenomena.
Creationism (or, at least, the evangelical Christian version) has no corrective mechanism nor predictive capability, and relies solely on its baldly asserting that it's right. Indeed, it also relies on trying to poke holes in actual scientific theories and presenting itself as the only alternative option. That's not scientific, nor should it pretend to be.
Epoxide, I respectfully disagree with you. How does believing in a creator totally discredit the physical sciences? Try telling John Lennox a Ph.D. and professor of physics at Oxford that his belief in God does not coincide with what he knows of that discipline. Again, stating Christianity is absurd is lazy intellectualism. It's childish.
Believing in a Creator isn't necessarily absurd. Treating a creation account as a ***SCIENTIFIC*** theory, without any realistic bounding, is absurd, however.
Here's a hypothetical to ponder (and don't dismiss it because you might think it absurd, because it illustrates the exact issue about treating a creation account as a scientific theory): how would you go about disproving the notion that the Universe was fully created in its current state 3.2883 attoseconds ago?
There is proof for evolution. That's why it is taught in science classes.
There are multiple creation stories, not just the biblical one, and not everyone agrees on the bilble.
Do you want to teach all creation stories?
Yes, which is why we should teach alchemy in chemistry class, flat earth theory in geography and astrology in astronomy.
You're ent.itled to your own opinions, not your own facts, and evolution is a FACT – only the profoundly scientific ignorant or intellectually dishonest claim otherwise.
I agree evolution is a fact when viewing changes in different species. What is not a fact and cannot be proven is that we evolved from primordial slime. Can't prove it. I can say that evolution of species is pre-ordained by God in the way he created them.
You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution and demonstrating your profound ignorance of evolutionary theory and science in general all at the same time, steelerguin.
Then augment their exposure to alternative views by taking them to your local church, synogogue, mosque or other place of worship.
There is only one scientific theory that explains the diversification of life on earth, and that is the theory of evolution. On the other hand, there are over a thousand different creation myths. All are mutually exclusive, meaning no 2 or more can be real.
Why in the world would you want your kids taught mythology as science? You nutters would go bonkers if the schools would teach your kids that the the creation myths of the Dogon, or the Bantu were real.
No.
Dragging religious dogma into a science room to accommodate religious parents is evil and unseemly.
Ever heard of free speech. If you don't care about a subject, just don't listen
The most ludicrous argument I've read here. With your moronic assertion, we should be able to teach kids that aliens from the planet Blingblang built the pyramids and invented the wheel, too. Free speech!
So you do not want to take any interest in your kid's education when dealing with topics that you do not like? you just do not listen to either argument? I pity the people depending on you That is not being scathing, just the sad truth
So, in short, this god dude created the universe, the earth, than the man and gave him a bunch random of rules and told him "if you do not follow me and what I said, so help me I will whop you for the eternity", and wrapped it in this package called "choice". Why? for giggles?
"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..."
NO. You can discuss the theory of evolution and it's "problems" but you may not bring your goofy church into public school classrooms and that's what creationism is. It's just religion with no basis in fact or reality.
Well, I will accept them teaching the bible in classroom, only if they are willing to accept teaching every world religion with the exact same vigor as they show while teaching christianity.
You know, according to their argument – "giving all the choices and letting the students decide which is the truth"
They might have to expand the curriculum a bit to cover all the thousands of creation myths humans have dreamed up over the years.
You know that AIN'T gonna happen. In some places, parents have even objected to yoga classes being taught (you know, Phys Ed, stretching, health and all that) because it was obviously an attempt to bring Hindu teachings into the classroom. Yikes.
I have no problem teaching comparative religion in public schools. Or teaching religious theories in Philosophy classes. It would be interesting to have kids compare and contrast say, Buddhism, Christianity and Neo Paganism. We had such a class in my high school in the 70's. Guess which group complained about the class. Oh come on, you all know...
If you want to have creationism debated or taught in schools then you should include other religions' human origin theories as well. You can't have one religion's theory represented and not the rest- there is no evidence beyond an individual's faith that one religion is more correct than the rest.
My personal favourite being the Nordic legends. I get a kick out of Loki.
"Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans"
The word of an infallible creator as conveyed by fallible human primitives that lived thousands of years ago with no concept or understanding of the natural universe. Seems reasonable.
I am not sure where people got the idea that believing in a god and believing in evolution were mutually exclusive.
If you take the bible as literally true then evolution is one of the enemies.
I love how Ham is already selling DVDs and other crap about this debate. Methinks this is more about capitalism than creationism.
How else is he going to get the funds to build his life size Noah's Ark?
The Creation Museum sure isn't making any money....
Have you looked at their website? They charge a fortune to get into that thing. I can get into a lot of science museums for the cost of one admission at the Creationism fantasy land. By the way, I thought they already had a life size ark?
It is still under construction because they ran out of money.
Given that they've added theme-parkesque attractions like zip lines, Ham's venture qualifies less and less as a "museum"...
Right, you forget you generally are going to a PUBLIC FUNDED MUSEUM from taxpayers. Anyway, the debate is FREE for anyone who desires to watch it.
What truly disgusts me is that their a "non-profit" as well.
I think having a courteous debate is always the way to go. I'm an atheist and pro science all the way, but I don't hold science as the answer to everything for everyone. Science is all about experimentation and fitting our expectations and answers to reality, not wishful thinking, magic or fables.
If students are exposed to challenges to the theory of evolution (mind you, it's a theory, not an hypothesis or a speculation), that's great, as long as there are no extreme views that take over.
This is a pointless debate.
Facts:
Evolution does not explain how life began.
Creationism is a claim of how life began.
The debate doesn't work because neither side is clear that this is the starting point.
Exactly, the debate is NOT Evolution vs Creationism, because Evolution does not offer an alternative to Creationism.
true unless one adds in young earth notions. Otherwise one can have both creation and evolution as one can very easily think that God used evolution to do the creation much as in general natural processes are the norm rather than sudden, supernatural miracles. The idea of God snapping his fingers so to speak billions of years ago and setting forth a chain of events that would have amazing results way in the future sounds way more god like than Him working hard for six days (why not one second instead of six days). Evolution seems to have a whole lot more evidence but as they say God works in mysterious ways so what do I know.
You are right, it is a debate of missing information at best.
Creationism says all humans alive today descend from two people, Adam and Eve, that had no ancestors themselves. Evolution says something quite different. They are in direct conflict with each other, so they CAN be debated together.
Zep, the theories are still in direct conflict. Serious creationists, like Ken Ham, propose that life appeared in varied, complex forms through supernatural means. Evolutionary theory, whether it provides complete answers for the origin of life or not, maintains that the diversity of species and the complexity of biological systems is the result of gradual change.
not saying this is correct for sure but they have simulated lightning in an atmosphere similar to what Earth is thought to have had long ago and did get some nucleic acids or something close to it. It's not too much of a stretch to think these formed simple DNA like molecules that started building simple proteins. There's evidence in cells that cells as we know them didn't so much mutate to become cells as much as various pre-cell like organics clustered together. Mitochondria being an example of this. Far from proof but know something is at least plausible is a start toward knowing the truth.
Bill Nye should know better about evolution...in fact, he defuncts the theory.
If you saw him on Dancing with the Stars, he did not evolve as a dancer! He was created to keep pre-schooler's amuzed with cool science tricks for an hour on TV.
A monkey dropped its tail, stood upright and then learned to talk?!! You don't need a PHD...a little common sense goes a long way!
and you did not evolve as a thinker!
He defuncts the theory? Try again.
I assuming that you are anti-evolution, although that is hardly clear from your ramblings.
1) We did not evolve from monkeys. 2) Individuals do not evolve, populations do.
In other words, no monkey "dropped" its tail and started walking and talking.
You totally defuncted that dude.
You base the veracity of Bill Nye by his performance on "DWTS"? Really?
Wow.
Common sense is very often dead wrong, which is why we don't rely on it to form scientific theories. Instead, we rely on evidence and testable observation.
"Common sense" led humans to believe the Earth was flat, and that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Ok let me get this straight adam and eve had two boys where did it go from there?
Lots and lots of inbreeding, hence creationists.
I still want to know how much the museum is charging for attendance. I already looked up the video on the site, they are charging $20 for the DVD of this debate. Ken Ham is a about profits and has been deceiving naive people for years. Please stop supporting him, especially theists. You guys are fueling his fire of nonsense.
http://debatelive.org/
"Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans."
But the Bible was written by humans.
Besides, whenever I see a child suffering from MLD, I can't see how a person can believe god is infallible
Science and Religion aside, I would much rather believe that I was created by a person than to have evolved from an ape.
You were created by your parents. Humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. And why would you think one is better than the other?
Ok... let me get this straight. You suggest "check your bias...." yet go on to state "i would much rather believe". So you have a bias that you would prefer to believe, while expecting others to be objective....hmmmm....
I'm thinking that Evolution is the mechanism of Creation and took billions of years. The 6,000 year theory is a misinterpretation of the bible in it's original language..
That's where the "intelligent design" movement tries to make some hay. Unfortunately, they don't really appeal to either side – you can't scientifically prove the existence of a "guiding hand" in evolution, and Biblical literalists cling to their "made in God's image" (i.e., directly, not over time). Personally, I think there's not much to a divine power that statically creates everything in one fell swoop, compared to one that sets up a few basics and lets the dice roll. Much more powerful and wise (i.e., long-thinking) to do it that way...but you still can't prove it, so let's all accept the billions of years of ongoing change, offer a more relaxed interpretation of Genesis and move on.
There are a thousand different creation myths. The two in Genesis are no more real than any of the others.
I would rather believe the truth, than delude myself by picking whichever theory sounds like what I wish was true.
And there in a nutshell is the difference between the two main camps arguing in this thread: do you simply feel your way through this by choosing to believe one school of faith (out of many competing ones) or do you participate in a process that objectively seeks to gather information, test it, debate it and understand our world more deeply through a collective effort. Two very different world views: (feeling/believing, told to you top-down, based on very old texts) or (actively engaging/investigating, done in a decentralized way, actively updating the knowledge base). Characterizing science as "just pick a theory" is nowhere close to how it works.
Creationism is the easy way out. I feels better to have an ego and be this special creation hand designed by god. Unfortunately that doesn't hold up to scrutiny anywhere. Religion is comfort thing to ease the fear of death and make them feel important.
Here's a thought. If you're going to call yourself a scientific thinker, as this and other Creationists do, consider this: you're not allowed to replace gaps, voids, and problems in the current scientific model for any complex problem (like the evolution of species) with the magical answer of your choosing.
That should apply to non-creationists as well. (ie. missing link for example)
Hamlet, no. You're wrong.
The point, made again and again, is that scientific theory is inherently rife with knowledge gaps. We will always, always, always be moving from a position of lesser understanding, to a position of greater understanding – and along the way, we'll always be presenting, testing, and evaluating theories in attempts to fill those gaps. It's messy, it's fascinating, and it's always going to be unfinished work.
The logical fallacy of the religious response is 1) to misunderstand that entirely. Creationists seem to have no concept of the non-dogmatic, moving target that scientific inquiry is in constant pursuit of. 2) You're not allowed to plug magical answers into the holes. The belief that God created things isn't a scientific theory. It's a magical answer.
Evolution has never been proven, it is still a theory. WE are not here becasue of some great cosmic accident where matter crashed into each other and formed a perfect planet for us to evolve from microbes.
Getaclue: like Hamlet, you misunderstand the nature and goals of science.
Little or nothing in science is "proven" in the sense of the word that you're applying. Instead, what characterizes science is a rigorous, ongoing effort to understand the universe on the basis of gathered data. That means that our theory and consensus on this or ANY subject is bound to evolve over time as our research methods change, our data becomes deeper, and our knowledge is revised. That's not a weakness. That's the STRENGTH of science.
What's truly mind-boggling is the apparent argument that if you're unclear about a particular scientific mechanism, the only sensible thing to do is to turn to a 3000-year-old oral tradition from a particular middle eastern nomadic tribe for their best guess.
I think your error is you don't have a good understanding of "theory." Some believe that a theory is just a guess with out evidence. If you believe this to be true, The Theory of Evolution would not make sense to you. Read about what a theory actually is and you will suddenly realize, "OMG, if I had only known I would not have made that silly comment."
😆 AGAIN this blatant lie about evolution is posted. I swear all of these guys are the same person. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. If you don't understand what a scientific theory is, there is nothing I can tell you to change that. LEARN ABOUT IT. READ. DENY IGNORANCE.
One comment and question for the religious out there (whom I respect and have no ill will toward). The bible in one very very brief paragraph is as follows: live a good moral life as defined by the bible and you will go to heaven and live forever. Question: If God is the omnipotent one and the creator, then why play this game? Why not create the exact type of human being that you want and not have to kill billions of people? If God is the creator, why create imperfect beings in the first place? You must admit that it is a game and the winners of the game get to go to heaven. Why go through all of that mess. Just create exactly what you want as creator and be done with it?
I'm asking a serious question that none of my religious friends can answer. And I'd love an answer that would turn me back into a believer.
Because God wanted people who loved him out of their own free will, not because they were pre programmed robots.
@ Tom – and exactly how can it be "free will" if the stated consequences of failing to believe in and love god is to but in a fiery hell for all eternity. Just a little bit of duress being applied there, wouldn't you say?
If you are the creator you can create human beings that are not preprogrammed robots...
Not necessary to "preprogram". How about real, understandable, concrete data... instead of a hide-and-seek; catch-me-if-you-can; door #1, door #2, door #3 game with eternal consequences for guessing wrong?
Free will could still be in the mix - with verifiable options to choose from.
Biblegod would be a monstrous trickster if it existed.
Good luck. Once you've figured out the scam of organized religion you will never go back.
@Mr Logical : live a good moral life as defined by the bible and you will go to heaven and live forever.
Following this definition, you will go straight to hell. Rather, the Bible state that if you accept Jesus as your Lord, then you will go to heaven – REGARDLESS of how good or bad you lived your life.
@Mr Logical : If God is the omnipotent one and the creator, then why play this game? Why not create the exact type of human being that you want
It is because even God cannot contradict logic. God cannot give you free will (to chose or reject him) AND deny you a choice.
@Mr Logical : You must admit that it is a game and the winners of the game get to go to heaven.
I'd put is slightly different. Those who can put aside their selfishness and accept Christ get to go to heaven.
<><
I understand your points. But, if you are the creator, you can create human beings who will choose Christ and accept Jesus so that they will go to heaven. The creator is omnipotent and can do anything he/she desires. So, again, why the game? Just create human beings that will live (by their choice and freely) exactly as you would have them live. I still just don't get it. I was very religious up until about 3 years ago...and then I started thinking about all of this stuff and, the more I do, the more it sounds like Santa. It simply isn't logical.
And of course, I suppose, that is you. You get to go. Other good people, who haven't been "selfish" enough to live a good life without expectations of reward, don't get to go.
The arrogance of that religious thought is stunning. Framing it as "humbling" when it is all ME ME ME is twisted. Teaching children they will roast in h-ll if they don't believe in that is emotional child abuse. At least the Catholics have a better sense of doing good works.
The Bible in a nutshell is about who has the right to rule. Adam and Eve challenged God by believing they could rule themselves and God basically gave them the chance to prove it. As we see, human rulership has not worked. Why wouldn't He just destroy Adam and Eve and start over? Because the Angels saw the challenge and God is always just and fair.
Contrary to popular belief, not everyone is going to heaven. The Bible says the meek will possess the earth and they will live forever upon it. Revelation 21:3,4 talks about God being with mankind and he will do away with death, sickness, pain, tears, etc.
Got all that. Thanks. Still doesn't answer my basic question...
Since when isn't evolution challenged in the laboratory ? Evolution has been challenged, creationism can't be , that's why it's not science. It's not evolution that's being challenged by creationism , it's the fact that it's widely been dis proven that the earth is a few thousand years old and a magic man in the sky created it in seven days. Creationism is not a scientific theory.
Steve, you can not prove we all evolved from primordial slime any more than you can prove God created the world. It all depends on what you believe.
The main reason I see people defending creationism is because they are defending the literal correctness of the Bible. If the words of Genesis were to be set aside as "no longer accepted as the truth" for whatever reason (science or otherwise), then that opens up the rest of the Bible to similar criticism and dismissal. So this isn't a debate of evolution vs creationism (at least for Ham), it's about maintaining the literal totality of the Bible or not. Fundamentalists of any faith will never allow their holy text to be picked apart in this way. Evolution is just one example of an area where recent scientific advances cause fundamentalists to grip their Bible ever more tightly and deny a more figurative interpretation. It's just far simpler to say "If it's in the Bible, it's true." Science is a far more dynamic process, requiring investigation (process and data), examination/discussion/reproduction of experimental results, and so on. Two very different world views...
Yup.
The result of this will be the same result that's always been had when science debates relgion: science wins 100% of all points made, by providing proof and reason and a logical analysis of the world around us. Religion will declare victory anyway, ignoring all that science said, and trot off into the sunset, immediately forgetting that the debate ever happened.
(While blaming their devil.)
Never argue with an idiot, Bill, they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I've been to the museum that Mr. Ham is affiliated with. Having been there, I cannot take this man seriously. They teach that Adam and Eve were the Flintstones, living hand in claw with dinosaurs. There are some neat displays at the museum, but I could not find any part of me that actually for one moment believed any of their hype. It was pure nonsense. Not to mention, you spend 2 hours walking through the displays only to be shoved into a room where they show a very graphic video of lamb sacrifice and try to get you to repent. You aren't going to win any new followers with the crap that they display. You want to really have a debate about creation vs evolution, don't go with a nut who thinks our relatives rode dinosaurs to the rock quarry.
What the hell is the purpose of the lamb sacrifice??
You're looking for logic where it does not exist.