 |
|
|
|
 Science educator Bill Nye, left, will face off against creationist Ken Ham in Tuesday night's debate.
February 4th, 2014
01:17 PM ET
Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken HamEditor's note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on Tuesday at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be live-streamed at 7 p.m. ET on CNN.com, and CNN's "Piers Morgan Live" will host both Ham and Nye at 9 p.m. Tuesday after the debate. Opinion by Bill Nye, Special to CNN (CNN) - A lot of people have been asking why I accepted Ken Ham’s invitation to debate the origins of life Tuesday night at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. In short, I decided to participate in the debate because I felt it would draw attention to the importance of science education here in the United States. What keeps this country in the game economically is our ability to innovate. New ideas lead to new technologies, which drive new businesses and new opportunities. Technological innovations absolutely cannot be created without fundamental understanding of science, the means by which we know nature. How many young adults and taxpayers use mobile phones? How many of us rely on global navigation systems that use satellites high above the Earth’s surface to find our way around? Even if you eschew smartphones, you rely on the system to keep airplanes in the sky and ships at sea on their routes. Modern farmers plant seeds in fields with extraordinary precision using information beamed from satellites in space. MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm Debating Bill Nye For the United States to maintain its leadership in technology, we need well-educated science students. To allow our students to come of age without the knowledge gained through the extraordinary scientific insights and diligence of our ancestors would deprive them of understanding of nature and our place in the cosmos. It would also rob our students of their future. Without scientists and engineers to create new technologies and ways of doing society’s business, other economies in other countries will out-compete the United States and leave our citizens behind. Tuesday's debate will be about whether Ham’s creation model is viable or useful for describing nature. We cannot use his model to predict the outcome of any experiment, design a tool, cure a disease or describe natural phenomena with mathematics. These are all things that parents in the United States very much want their children to be able to do; everyone wants his or her kids to have common sense, to be able to reason clearly and to be able to succeed in the world. The facts and process of science have enabled the United States to lead the world in technology and provide good health for an unprecedented number of our citizens. Science fuels our economy. Without it, our economic engine will slow and eventually stop. It seems to me that Ham is a fundamentalist. Around the world there are billions of people, who embrace the facts and process of modern science, and they enjoy their faith. By all accounts, their faith enriches their lives. These people have no conflict with their faith and science. Ham is unique in this regard. Fundamentally, Ham’s creation model is not part of modern science. His idea has no predictive quality or ability. It provides no means to learn more about the world around us. It does not enable students to make consistent sense of nature. So, we’ll see. We’ll see if his model stands up to traditional scientific inquiry: If a certain claim is true, then we would expect a certain outcome. I’m excited and very much looking forward to the encounter. Bill Nye is a science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society. The views expressed in this column belong to Nye. soundoff (2,162 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 Next »
« Previous entryKen Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Not listening to Bill Nye is like taking an oath to ignorance. Or signing a pledge because you have been intimidated into doing so. I am in my 64th year and I remember watching Mr. Wizard on TV, that little black and white set that sat front and center in the living room. Bill Nye is the new Mr. Wizard. He tempts you to dare to learn new things and do things in new ways. Religionists for hundreds, even thousands, of years have not been a net benefit to the people. If we take the great separatist, God, out of the equation then maybe we would work to fix this planet we have desecrated. You go, Bill. Bring it for the team.
It's pretty simple.
If you believe in God believe he created Evolution.
If you don't believe in God believe in Evolution.
The problem with those who reject creationism is that they, too, are guilty of limiting themselves. Whether you believe that humans are created by a divine being, or the random consequence of a cosmic anomaly, you can't deny their extremely limited place in the universe. If we limit what we could accept as truth only to the things that we can see with our eyes or touch with our hands, then its likely that we'll end up rejecting a great deal of of things that are factual.
I can't prove the existence of a God in the terms that would satisfy someone like Bill Nye. Indeed, if that were possible, faith would lose its meaning and we would find it much harder to separate real and false virtue. But there are issues which science can hardly begin to address – and barely attempts to broach. I can't guarantee that creation took place in exactly the method prescribed in Genesis – but even if it didn't, there's enough truth to even that specific story that makes the potential cost of wrongly rejecting it much greater than the potential cost of wrongly accepting it.
When scientists can offer of some explanation, with a level of proof that meets their own benchmarks, that shows that an incredibly well-ordered singular instance of creation of everything that has or will ever exist came to be from nothing by nothing and without any kind of intelligence or purpose driving it, then I'll listen. And I'll go to bed tonight, and the next night, and the night after that comfortable in the knowledge that that point will never happen.
Its like the announcement that Stephen Hawking reversed himself and decided that no, there wasn't any need for a divine creator, because the "rules of existence" were sufficient to drive creation. But of course, that only asks the question of who wrote the rules and provided the materials and did everything else that was required, at the most fundamental level, to put things into motion.
Good Point! Well Pondered.
When it's a debate pitting Evolution vs. Creationism (or it's stepchild, Intelligent Design), and that debate is on neutral ground, evolution ALWAYS wins. It has always been thus since the Scopes Trial. Scopes may have paid the fine, but creationism was destroyed utterly in the educated public's mind.
It's only an issue when politically affiliated groups say it is! Good sheep!
I'd like to believe that there may be some existence beyond what we see and feel in the everyday world and if there is such a thing I'm sure that we hardly have a clue about it. Books and texts dreamed up by people to promote a religion are unreliable and often ridiculous. As for organized religion I have no delusions about that, it is a method to influence and control the populous and has been since the invention of the idea of gods no matter what name people want to put to them. On the other hand it is the definition of conceit to believe that we know everything there is to know about anything especially the universe and or what lays out side the scope of our own sense's and understanding. Also some of what is taught in the name of religion is very enlightened, as in "treat others as you would wish to be treated". But it can also encourage people to oppress other people and persecute them in its name, NOT very enlightened. The real test is if the particular religion or belief is more of a benefit then a detriment to society in general and is it repressive in its teachings. That is the big factor for me in determining its quality of worth. As for following its teachings well.....I'll consider the enlightened ideals and teachings as worthy of consideration the rest well…… no thanks.
Everyone is an atheist ..... you don't believe in Odin or Anubis do you? So really the only difference between yourself and an atheist is that an atheist simply believes in one less god than you do.
Actually the difference between myself and an Atheist is that I'm not a hypocrite the way anyone who soundly rejects the existence of a diving being is. Why are they hypocrites? Because they reject a viewpoint for lack of evidence (the existence of a divine being), which by default requires them to adopt an equally unproven – and very arguably, equally unlikely viewpoint (that creation came to be completely by accident).
There's as much faith involved in rejecting the existence of God as there is in accepting it.
Extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary supporting evidence. The denier has no duty to prove non-existence, as this is a negative proof logical fallacy. The believer has the burden of proof.
And you don't consider the idea that a well-ordered and enduring (on the count of billions of years) creation came to be without any type of intelligence or guidance behind it – in short, that everything is the result of a single, unreapeted, giant, cosmic accident – to be "extraordinary belief"?
Its a greater violation of natural laws as we know them to say that everything created itself from nothing than it is to say that there is another force not subject to natural laws that created everything.
Yes, normally, the burden of proof lies with one who makes a claim. So, if I tell you there's a teapot floating around Jupiter, I need to actually show you a satellite image of the teapot. Except we're not arguing over whether that metaphorical teapot exists – we ARE the teapot, we KNOW it exists. We're debating how it got there. You can't reject the existence of a higher being without making an affirmative claim yourself.
To profess a belief in the supernatural, in spite of a complete lack of evidence for its existence, doesn't make you appear wise or intelligent, just gullible.
I think I'll take "gullible" over "hypocritical" or "short-sighted".
Just be careful, the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary.
Good Stuff Matt, and well said.
My God is so awesome, my God said out loud "See that premordial soup? In a few billion years my creation will land on the moon". Why can't God have created us through a process of evolution? Why does that dimish God? Why can't I believe in God and in the scientic evidence?
What biblical stories are you willing to dismiss in the name of science?
The Bible is not a science book. Those who say it is don't understand it's message
Try spelling primordial correctly. That would be a miracle in itself!
Sorry. I speak three languages fluently, but apparently none accurately.
What Bill Nye seems to not understand is that you can believe in a higher power, yet still fully believe in science.
The Christians I know are not arguing that gravity isn't real. They are arguing that we didn't evolve from apes. Or chimpanzees. Or spider monkeys. And science has yet to prove THIS link.
never will be proved because we are *not* descended form chimps, monkeys, or any of the great apes. you need to read before you spew.
Monkeys treat one another a whole lot better than we do!
First of all, man did NOT evolve from apes. Man and apes both evolved from a common ancestor You could say that apes are our cousins, not our parents. Second, all scientifically literate adults accept evolution. There are no exceptions.
Of course all scientifically literate adults accept evolution, most of the Christians I know do as well. However, the evolution we are talking about is within a species. Species adapt to their environment, the strong traits survive, etc, etc.
The problem is, there is yet to be a link found that directly precedes humans. There is no creature on this earth that comes close to what humans can do in terms of intelligence. Are there "smart" animals, sure. But are they inventing cures for terminal diseases?
Evolution has been proven. DNA evidence alone supports it.
This is news! Show me the web link that shows the direct predecessor to the human race. I've been waiting for it all my life.
I'm not sure what rock you just crawled out from under but here it is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bStudyorigins.shtml
truthprevails – the graph on that link shows we descended directly from gorillas and orangutans... is this a real argument?
If that is shown (lucky enough to be fossilized), you would ask for the ancestor in-between. Faith is not in the evidence business, there is never enough evidence to disspell faith.
For the love of science, please stop saying we evolved FROM apes. Evolution does not say this. It says we came from a common ancestor. Please, please get an education for yourself so that your children will not perpetuate such ignorance.
Which ancestor is that? I've been waiting 32 years for someone to show me solid proof of where we directly came from and so far science has failed me.
Jumping the gap from cro-magnon man to humans would take more faith than for me to believe in a higher power at this point.
Science is not in the proof business. It is in the evidence business, of which there is plenty, if you are willing to look.
That is the problem... With no understanding of evolution, you make ridiculous claims. Humans have never been claimed to have evolved from any species of ape you mentioned. I won't simplify it... read up.
Creationism and Science CANNOT co-exist because creationism has no scientific basei whatsoever and you have to completely deny all logic and scientific evidence to believe in it. Science and Intelligent Design CAN co-exist because intelligent design acknowledges that evolution and science exist, but claims they were guided by a creator some kind.
Why must it be guided by a creator and not, say, a magical unicorn-fish thing? Claiming either would be equally valid, in fact.
My point is that intelligent design can be reconciled with science, while creationism cannot. If you believe a unicorn guided evolution, fine as long as you accept that evolution exists. If you think the earth was created in a week and eve was made from the rib of adam, you have to completely deny all scientific truth and the is absolutely nothing to back it up.
Good point! I wonder what discoveries and scientific "advancements" have occurred that could not, or have not been founded without a belief in God; Cell theory, Genetics, Cathode Rays? Before I became a Christian, I read that many existentialists believed that a faith in a greater being actually improved ones ability to be. I was thinking of this like a good mystery story. The fact that an intelligent person created it does not lessen the joy, desire, or ability to find a solution. It seems like the opposite would be true if a person believed that we were a cosmic chance.
There is no Jesus, there is only Zuul!
I am the Keymaster, are you the Gatekeeper?
Only if you look like a young Segorny Weaver
Maybe if I shave off my beard...
Ha!
Bill Nye is WRONG , as usual.
.
Creationism does provide means to research the world around us as the history of Christianity demonstrate. Most of the early researchers were priests and monks. Most of the highly educated in the past were priest and monks.
Creationist study nature, they just do so with the idea of finding out HOW God made it and how it works.
.
It is EVOLUTION that has no explanation for first life and therefore no basis to debate.
So God came from NOTHING and then created EVERYTHING from NOTHING.
So don't knock Nye's intelligence.
Evolution only explains what happens after abiogenesis. Try reading this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Caves are great places for primitive thinking men to live, you might wish to locate one or join the 21st century-there is no justification for denying evolution!
Yes, indeed, and the populations were prohibited from schooling. Those priests and monks may have learned a few things, but their job was keeping the public ignorant of anything but scripture.
I believe it was called "The Dark Ages," and it held back human progress for about a thousand years.
I guess you don't mind that, though. Maybe you even wish it would come back?
... with the idea of finding out HOW God made it ...
But don't you understand that you are approaching the question with a major bias? Before anything you are asking how God made it. That is not studying, that is justifying a belief that is already held.
As many have said here, almost all atheists will concede that there is a chance that there is indeed a supernatural force. We find it very unlikely, but when we approach the problem, since there is no way to eliminate the possibility, you have to allow for it. However approaching the question (any questions) when you already think you know the Truth, is not seeking answers. It is justifying a preconceived belief.
Todays creationist is yesterdays flat-liners.
Flatliners?
actually it makes sense ... creationists are flat-liners ... 'dead from the neck up", to quote an annoying tv show.
Flatliners was a good movie, and also the main point.
Fairy tales are are all some people can rely on to make sense of the world they live in.
I'm a creationist and I completely fail to see how math and the science are opposed to my view. All I've ever seen is how others interpret results differently. That said I'm not really familiar with Ken Ham and his views so maybe there's something I'm missing about Bill's comments but for now the seem like they are off topic.
I guess you didn't read Ham 'a off topic article, either.
Creationism is a literal interpretation of the bible and is completely incompatible with science. Perhaps you believe in intelligent design, which acknowledges scientific fact but claims evolution was guided by a creator of some kind.
So wait, does creationism only refer to the Bible's story of it to any of the other thousands of ones mankind has come up with over the years?
Should be an interesting debate no matter what your belief structure is. I hope a wide range of people on both sides of the belief scale watch this and take away a good understanding of why each side believes the way they do. There should be a mutual respect from each, not hate filled comments about those who believe differently than others do. In the end we all will ultimately find out who was right.
I don't really understand the confusion. Religion and science are separate, the can exist together in the same space. Religion does not discount science. Religion is a faith, which by definition has no basis in science. You can be a religious scientist or a scientist with no religious beliefs.
I agree that we all learn, even if it's just understanding another's perspective, when we debate respectfully and listen to others. Having said that, I think that on a scale of 1 (being absolute material atheists) versus 10 (being completely uber-fundamentalist, including 6000 year old Earth, heaven and hell, sin, demons and Satan fighting God), reality leans lower on the scale, I suspect below 5. This isn't to say that spirituality or even some form of God aren't real. But fundamentalism is so limited, anti-evidence, and pro obedience to a questionable ancient book that it precludes itself from winning the debate except to those whom are fundamentalists.
Science vs. magic ? It's like bringing holy water to a gun fight.
creationists would claim to bring the ark.
Except that modern science tells us that life cannot be created without a host yet you believe life created itself, without a host. Or you could believe that there was host in which that would lean to creation. So tell me again how modern science debunks Christianity?
You clearly don't understand the science.