 |
|
|
|
 Creationist Ken Ham makes a point in Tuesday's debate with Bill Nye, the "science guy."
February 5th, 2014
08:49 AM ET
What I learned moderating the creation/evolution debateBy Tom Foreman, CNN CNN's Tom Foreman moderated the "creation debate" Tuesday night in Petersburg, Kentucky, between Bill "the Science Guy" Nye and creationist Ken Ham. (CNN) - It says something when a person shows up at the Creation Museum wearing a top that says, "This is my atheist T-shirt." At least that's what I think it said. I saw it in a blur as she passed in the parking lot; a thirtysomething with a young boy in tow, striding through the bitter winds of Kentucky to visit a place that proclaims those who deny the existence of God are dead wrong. I thought about chasing her down to ask her what had compelled her to come, but it would have been a foolish question. She was here to see a fight. And I was here to play the referee, to moderate a debate on a question that has raged for well over a century: Was humankind created by God in a rush of divine power, or did we evolve over time with only nature to take the credit? Or as the organizers put it: "Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?" About 900 people snapped up tickets to this event just a few minutes after they went on sale, and I was told they expected at least "hundreds of thousands ... maybe a million or more" to watch as it streamed online. It was not just the topic drawing the throngs. For this crowd, the debaters really mattered.
On the left (literally for the audience, and figuratively in every other way) was the champion for the evolutionary side. Bill Nye, "the Science Guy," made fundamentalist Christian heads snap recently when he declared it was flat-out wrong for children to be taught creationism. I met him in a room behind the stage as the audience milled around, waiting for the event to begin. Having just spoken to an adoring crowd of science fans at a university the night before, he feared he was in hostile territory. MORE ON CNN: 'Creation debate' recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes "I think my agent is the only one on my side," he said, only half-joking. "I think the other 899 people in here don't really see it my way." It was hard to tell. Aside from the woman with the T-shirt, there were others wearing pro-Nye gear, but no good way to count them. Still, it looked like his supporters were probably in the minority, and I mentioned to him that some scientists were grousing online he was validating the creationist argument by even showing up. "So why are you here?" I asked. "I'm here for the U.S. economy," he said. "See, what keeps the United States in the game for the world economy is our ability to innovate, to have new ideas, and those inventions come from science." "And you see creationism as sort of poisoning the well for science?" "Yes. I mean, I'm all for (creationism) in philosophy class, history of religion class, human psychology class," but bring it into science class, and Nye gets upset. And that is what disturbs Nye's debate opponent. Ken Ham is a rock star in the creationist community who is quick to point out his own educational credentials and those of other scientists who support creationist views. He is one of the founders of the Creation Museum, where dinosaurs are depicted as living alongside humans and the Great Flood of Noah is an indisputable fact. He believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components. (Ham concedes, though, that the great number of scientists and citizens agree with Nye: evolution is real.) I first met Ham back when the museum was being built, and he greeted me Tuesday night in his affable, Australian manner just outside the room where Nye was waiting. "I must admit I'm a little nervous," Ham told me looking out at the audience. "I want to passionately present my case and defend what I believe, but we never imagined it would become this big. It's amazing. Just shocked all of us." It was impressive to see how much interest the event generated. A riser with a phalanx of production cameras sat in the middle of the room, 70 or so journalists were clustered to one side of the stage, and security officers seemed to be all over the place. I was told that metal detectors were being used to screen the audience, and I saw what I presume were explosive-sniffing dogs quietly working the hallways. Both sides in this debate know the subject matter can spur extreme feelings, and they did all they could to make sure extreme actions didn't follow. Just the same, one organizer pointed out a corner some 30 feet behind my spot on the stage. A door there opens to the parking lot, he said, "just in case, for any reason, you need to get out fast." The advice was appreciated but unnecessary. The crowd proved to be polite, attentive and admirably restrained through the entire 2½-hour debate. So were the debaters. Although they were firmly on opposite sides of the fence, Ham and Nye presented their arguments calmly and respectfully. Neither tried to shout the other down. I spent my time listening to what they had to say, watching the clock to make sure they got equal time and trying to ensure people in each camp felt their man was treated fairly. Both debaters shook hands at the end to rousing applause. It was not a fight after all. MORE ON CNN: Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism Considering the depth of feelings people have about this issue, I asked both men before we began if they expected to change anyone's opinion. Ham said, "I will present (my information) trying to change people's minds, but knowing as a Christian it is God who changes people's minds, not me." Nye said, "Here is my hope: I will remind Kentucky voters that this is a serious issue and that it is inappropriate to include creationism as an alternative to ... the body of knowledge and the process called science." MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm debating creationist Ken Ham By the time the debate was done, a fierce winter storm had settled in. I waded through the Creation Museum parking lot ankle deep in snow, with sleet pelting down. And I think it was a worthwhile evening - a debate humankind was created to have, or to which we evolved.
Next entry »Obama: religious freedom 'under threat'
« Previous entryCreation debate recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Why are the editors afraid of the truth?is it a sign that the inevitable change will really take hundreds of years.?
Despite the enormous evidence – no, proof isn't it? – that my profession is based on lies, I will continue to do my best to deceive people with baseless claims that evolutionary dynamics emerge naturally from mathematics and are as sound a way of looking at the world as anything mathematics has to offer. I would feel shame if I could.
how does a comment post as moderated immediately?
Are they mad at you and trying to ban you or something?
Did it say moderated or did it just not post? I think if it just doesn't post, it's the word filter thing.
I think you are correct. Word filter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiZGWno2R7Y
Imagine a criminal murder case where the prosecution has the following evidence:
1. The murder weapon, a knife with the victim's blood verified by blood types and DNA.
2. The accused's finger prints are on the knife.
3. Skin and blood was found under the victims finger nails. That evidence matched the accused's blood types and DNA with the most rigorous tests and handling procedures.
4. Multiple witnesses in adjacent apartments heard screams at 6:10 PM.
5. Security camera video shows the accused entering the building at 5:54 the same day, and leaving at 6:13. The pictures were clear and high resolution. Matching clothes were found in the accused's closet.
6. The accused's finger prints were on the door handle of the victim's apartment.
7. Witnesses saw the accused and victim arguing that morning.
The defense pleads not guilty. Says that isn't him in the video, the blood types are not conclusive, the DNA tests are not conclusive, finger prints are there because he was there a month ago for dinner, and his mother provided an alibi that they were together at that time.
Denying evolution is like finding the accused not guilty.
Well said and very true.
Those who believe in creationism are completely irrational.
I beleive in God. I believe in evolution. I believe in science.
Mr. Spack may find it irrational but humans have something more than physical, as he deduced.
What do you mean by "evolution?" Do you mean that you think life emerged from some primordial soup?
The true reality based on science and faith proved that creationism and evolution is one and complementary to each other,that's what panthrotheist call the dialectical process
Yes life evolved from that primordial soup about 2.5 billion years ago and the the first boned creatures the vertebrates during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago and humans only about 200,000 years ago and religions about 10,000 years ago and Panthrotheism the forthcoming religion about 150 years from today.
To Paul,yes life evolved through evolution but inspired or guided by God the father through his Will,Christ was sent by Him 2000 years ago to guide humanity and inspired the Roman emperor ,Constantine the great to adapt Christianity to be the empires religion to enhance knowledge and progress In its empire of what is now Europe and Middle East.The center of the worlds civilization at that time,Panthrotheism,with the advent of the internet and modern technology will have a global effect in humanity's progress and the legacy of exploring the whole universe,starting with the solar system in this century.
And the accused probably said: "the devil made me do it"
Religious belief as it should not determine a case in the court of man. The case is brought in the court of God.
There is no evidence of any of the thousands of gods men have worshipped. so you have a few possibilities
1) There is a god and it is EXACTLY the one who you think it is.
2) There is a god or gods, but NOT what you think.
3) There are no gods at all.
You presume 1, which has the LOWEST probability to be correct.
To this point, there is no evidence of any gods anywhere.
The analogy here by Boston is very simplistic,to have a better perspective of reality is to view it in the Panthrotheistic point of reckoning,The historical and scientific angle.Last year ,the Big Bang theory was confirmed in Switzerland with the discovery of the Higgs boson,the God particle,the undisputed origin of everything in the universe,it is the scientific part,the other part which is faith is Gods self creation,the conversion of that energy to matter.the two are complementary to each other,and the basis of our oneness in that reality
"discovery of the Higgs boson,the God particle" You do know the scientists themselves never said "God Particle". They said "...that god damned particle" on account of it being so hard to find. News editors changed it to God particle and, unfortunately, the name stuck.
And I'm still pretty sure is should be pananthrotheism. "Panthrotheism" would be the worship of Panthro from the Thundercats. Not that I have a problem with that, I just like things to be clear...
To G to the T,thanks for your valid suggestion,but the concept and word Pantrotheusm was coined and concieved more than 25 years ago,before the thunder cats or panthro characters of the online games was a reality.Books are about to be published on this teachings.So it's up to historical destiny to influence it.Maybe it has divine purpose for its coincidence.Thanks for the suggestions,it's up to the enlightened authority himself to act.
Yes it's true ,the scientist who confirmed the Higgs boson,Dr. Peter Higgs himself did not say it's the Gods particle but the unproven part of reality which is faith calls it God,In history all religions has the two components ,the proven and the unproven parts,that is why there's the principle of dynamic dogmatism that explains why historically religions evolved or changes to conform with the intellectual state of consciousness at the specific times that it existed.Panthrotheism,considering all variables and data points in this direction for change,and the heated debates in our generation is just part of the dialectical process.
If Evolution sued Creationism for identi.ty theft, libel, and slander Creationism would be in big trouble. In civil court the burden of proof is only the preponderance of evidence. Since Creationism has no objective evidence, and there is much evidence that it is false, and an enormous amount of objective evidence that Evolution is true (even though some details are still to be determined), Creationism would get waxed. Creationism would even lose in criminal court where the burden of proof is much higher, beyond a reasonable doubt. Creationism is bunk, young earth creationism is insanity.
I would love to see such a lawsuit, but I'm sure the defendant would just whine about religious persecution.
It would still depend on your jury pool, though.
Looks like we lost another thread on genocide and objective moral standards.
Be nice to know why.....hmmmmm
Rapture....the threads were so good they were raptured to heaven and now only the crappy ones are left behind.
What a shame!
Do the editors know how bad this makes THEM look? It seems like there is no concern or no control on their part.
By now the editors must be aware, yet to my knowledge, they've not made any attempt to address or fix this issue. In addition to the overly restrictive auto-moderator (which provides no guidance to the offending text), the "report abuse" button appears to provide a "heckler's veto" which in turn undermines the integrity of the forum.
I can't imagine it would be too difficult to provide a system which identifies offending text, allowing a poster to remedy the problem. Furthermore, how difficult would it be to allow posts reported as abusive to identify the poster/time, yet hide the body of the post with a "post removed by moderator" while allowing replies to remain?
Well they don't do as well as MR Foreman, CNN did .
The AP – did not last long ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEI4_CV8yDE
Jesus – Santa for grownups.
I guess the Roman Empire is a pigment of my imagination either.
???
Once again in English please.
Carpenter, Empire focus man. Peace be with you.
Peaceadvocate,
You are the very pineapple of hilarity!
"Sure, if I reprehend any thing in this world it is the use of my oracular tongue, and a nice derangement of epitaphs!"
I am glad to make you smile.
I rather use plain words rather than using hyperpoluting words is written. It is up to us to believe or not to believe.
Just like the internet, social media a lot is written. It is up to is to form our own educated assessment.
Hows the "theory of gravity" working out for you, Vic? Floating off the ground yet?
Nope. It's a Theory.
Does God exist? This is not a question for science because it is not falsifiable.
Cold Fusion of Fleischmann and Pons, Geo-centric universe, Einstein's static universe, luminiferous aether, Martian canals, planet Vulcan explains Mercury orbit anomalies, stress causes ulcers, young earth, and Genesis are all falsifiable and have been shown to be false.
So while science can't falsify God in general, like many other false theories, Genesis has been proven false. Earth first is wrong, firmament is wrong, land plants being first life is wrong, plants before the Sun is wrong, Sun and Moon created at the same time is wrong, whales (mammals) before other marine life is wrong, birds before terrestrial animals is wrong, God created cattle is wrong (man domesticated cattle), there are many more examples.
The interesting thing is, only 1 wrong example is needed for falsification. If you pick on one or two of the examples, the Genesis hypothesis is still false.
Genesis is not a hypothesis. It contains 2 origin stories and explains our relationship with our Creator. It is not a science manual. But people who understand Genesis do write science manuals today.
Your interpretation is accepted by many Christians, but you may be surprised how many American Christians regard Genesis as literally true.
The Cat In The Hat is not a hypothesis. It explains our relationship with The Cat In The Hat. It is not a science manual. But people who understand The Cat In The Hat do write science manuals today.
The Origin of the Species is not a hypothesis. It explains nothing since Darwin didn't have a clue that DNA existed, can't, has never and will never evolve. But still some scientists believe it, and even write false science manuals on it.
Boston,
Just read through you whole post. I find it amusing that I was talking to my wife this morning and used Fleishman and Pons "Cold Fusion" as an example of why science works. I hadn't talked to anyone about the Feishman and Pons experimant since I was in college at the time of the announcement.
It must be a sign and not just coincidence. *sarcasm*
That is funny.
Did you know that coincidence is the number 1 cause of Gods?
Hey the bible says that gods are the number 1 cause of gods.
False prophet or False profit?
Chuck – will it happen in the US ?
Head of Mormon church Thomas Monson summoned by British magistrates' court over Adam and Eve teaching
Thomas S Monson, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ordered to appear before British magistrates' court amid claims that the organisation's teaching amounts to 'fraud'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10619538/Head-of-Mormon-church-Thomas-Monson-summoned-by-British-magistrates-court-over-Adam-and-Eve-teaching.html
Interesting. I imagine Saul of Tarsus, Incorporated is next.
They could sell sunglasses! The theme song on their commercials could be "Blinded by the light"...
🙂
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." - Galatians 6:7.
John Lofton,
Your "God" character must like the mocking - and the smiting and punishing. "He" could fix it in an instant.
Doris or Bigfoot ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF0vop_K6OY#t=0
The Brits are smarter than the Yanks
And ?
The summonses were signed on 31 January by Judge Elizabeth Roscoe. Westminster Magistrates' Court told HuffPost UK the docu-ments posted on MormonThink were the authentic summons.
The Mormon Church, the spiritual home of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has more than 15 million members worldwide.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/05/mormon-church-uk_n_4729050.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
Religion should not be use to make money but to spread the good word.
Peace
It is the "spreading of the good word" that causes conflict with other beliefs.Spreading the "good word" also spread diseases like small pox to peacful tribes and societies that the christians then killed by bringing two diseases. The bible, and whichever pathogens they had with them.
The conflicts, diseases are sins brought or spread by humans. At times the spreading of the good word is used to justify conflicts or conquest. The spreading of diseases is unintentional due to humans ignorance.
The spread of disease is human ignorance...funny but your entire religion , and all religions are based on ignorance. Men do not know, so they make up gods...thousands of them to make men feel like they know more than they do. NO ONE has been able to show any gods exist.
If spreading the myths in the bible was gods will, why not protect the potential new recruits rather than let some ignorant people go and spread their propaganda along with their deadly diseases. Why let everyone interpret "his word" differently causing conflict and fighting.
It seems far more likely that is the work of satan. HE inspired your bible...just look at the history of belief in the bible..Wars, destruction, spread of disease, conflict in interpretation, justification for slavery, justification for bigotry and hatred on up to attempted genocide.
Then look at all the flaws in the bible, and the immoraltiy such as this: A woman who is not betrothed is ra.p.ed. The man who did it, just has to give 50 sheckles of silver to her father and then marry the victim...that will take away the stain on HER soul for not being "pure". This practice is still going on in Morrocco, justified by your satan inspired book. Many young women have killed themselves to escape the abuse of the men who victimized them in the first place, then the bible victimizes them..
The bible is clearly an evil work...full of lies and immorality.
Igat,
Bible is evil. Dont know you said that?
I agree Religion is based on ignorance. It is not meant for humans to have definitive proof that their religion is the only religion that is true. The point is would you still believe in the teachings of the Lord even if you dont have proof. This is how your faith is tested.
No...that is not faith being tested...it is IQ. Are you gullible enough to fall for the propaganda or not. The bible was written by men. The god within it was made up by men. ALL religions were made by men. ALL gods were made up by men as far as anyone can tell. There are THOUSANDS of gods, and they are nothing but mens imaginations filling in the gaps in their knowledge.
Why is the ground shaking and the mountain smoking..(many gods created to explain volcanoes)
Why does the sky flash and then boom? (many gods to explain lightening)
All gods are born out of ignorance.
Peaceadvocate: how can you say you advocate peace when the spread of christianity often came at the end of the sword? How can you claim to advocate peace when your religion killed, tortured and enslaved those who preferred to believe in their own gods? I think you conveniently forget the sins of your religion because you'd rather not remember those sins. But ignoring history doesn't make it go away. It just allows it to repeat.
Iga,
I rather be good than smart. That is my choice.
peace?
I prefer to be good and smart. The smart came from my parents, and the good was instilled by them as well.
I have always practiced random acts of kindness, and volunteer regularly.
My intelligence is what does not allow me to believe the bible, since I know much of it is false, and ALL of it was made up by men.
Iga,
I am not a saint either opps neither. However, i try to use the little intelligence i may have guided by morals.
We just may have a different interpretation of what is moral.
Tallu,
I agree we should learn from our past. What did we really learn from the spanish conquestadors or medieval crusaders?
Is it the elimination of other religions. Or the manner the spreading of the word is done.
I think the latter. Peacefully. Peace on to you my brother.
Why does God want to trick scientists into thinking the universe is old?
God created the universe that follows some basic models with incredible precision and accuracy. One of those is Quantum Mechanics. It is the most validated model of the physical world ever developed and has been tested to accuracies beyond every other theory. It predicts almost everything we know about how matter and energy works, how atoms behave, from semiconductors in our electronics to photosynthesis in plants forming the foundation of most life. If it were wrong, almost nothing would work as it does.
Then how is it that radiocarbon dating doesn't work. It relies on the straight forward beta decay described in QM. Beta decay works in every other atom that it applies to, verified by highly precise and accurate tests, over and over. The radiocarbon dating of organic material matches closely with other methods (tree rings, stratigraphic analysis, etc). Yet if you believe in a young earth, it must be wrong. An entire tapestry of science is fully aligned to beta decay, that point to an old earth. God went to extreme measure to trick scientists, or the earth/universe is billions of years old.
I learned we're teaching our kids a religion called macro evolution (monkey to man)! This is in conflict of separation of church and state! I can taste the lawsuits coming can't you? When we teach our kids they're all just animals, don't be surprised when they act like animals-turn on the news! Evolutionist (macro evolutionist that is, we all believe in micro) should be held responsible for the damages too!
Do try to learn something about evolution, before you make yourself look even more stupid.
Looks like you don't understand what a religion is either.
[
Vic
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 7, 2014 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse | Reply
February 8, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse | Reply
February 8, 2014 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse | Reply
February 8, 2014 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse | Reply
]
First of all, Quantum Physics, aka Quantum Mechanics, as well as General and Special Relativity, are but "Theoretical Physics," they are NOT PROVEN. Even better, Quantum Physics/Mechanics is in a direct collision course with the Theory of General Relativity.
Second, there is not one Radioactive Isotopic Dating Method that is practically accurate and reliable, they are ALL theoretical and based on assumptions. If you watched the debate, you would have heard Ken Ham say that even 90% of the Radioactive Isotopic Dating Methods contradict old age earth theories. That is epic..
Vic
Direct Dating of Cretaceous – Juras-sic Fossils (And other evidences for human – dinosaur coexistence) ?
By Robert Carbe + seven more and the Insti-tue for Creation Research ?
Let's have a little discussion of the neologism: atheopath. Essentially one afflicted by or suffering from atheism. As if we who chose logic are somehow diseased.
The word does not make sense. Theopath, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. One suffering from the delusion of god.
Most of us who are atheists were born into families full of Theopaths, and most of us likely started out as theopaths ourselves.
Luckily theopathy has a cure. That cure is education.
Ver's cutesy little neologism, "atheopath" makes no sense at all. A sociopath, for example, would be diseased against society; therefore an "atheopath" would be diseased against atheists. V. can only be talking about himself by using that "word".
How come macro evolutionist (monkey into man) can teach their religion to our kids with tax payer money in conflict of separation of church and state?? Why haven't we sued?? Also, secularization of church and state has done us no favors/great damage-turn on the news! When we teach our kids they're all just animals, don't be surprised when they act like animals! National disgrace!
Because there is evidence to support the Scientific Theory of Evolution.
Trolling comes naturally to some. For others, it's a work in progress.
There is a PhD in trolling at bible university, it seems?
Evolution is not a religion, it is science. It is recognized by virtually every university in the free world as a science. You are enti.tled to your own opinion but not your own facts. What qualifies you to reclassify evolution from science to religion?
DRJJ,
It's a lot better than to teach our kids that unicorns, dragons and talking serpents exist.
Do you want science classes to teach that the sun and moon STOPPED in their orbit for a day?
As soon as religions stop getting tax exemptions, I'm gonna listen to you.
Lol. Our culture. Giving to charity as long as its tax deductible.
Why does God want to trick scientists and critical thinking people into thinking that life evolves into new species?
The genetic record is clear. The genetic content of species within a Genus is closer than species in other Genuses. Same for Families, Orders, etc. God either used evolution to do his creation, or He popped animals into existence with genomes to perfectly emulate evolution. If it was the latter, God stacked the deck against scientists and critical thinking people. That couldn't be because that would be unethical, therefore evolution must be the answer.
It has been suggested, quite seriously, that the fossil record, radioactive decay, the appearance of the sky (stars etc.) are all creations of the devil to trick and deceive us.
There are many strained rationalizations proffered over time, that's for sure.
Jesus promised salvation. Thor promised to kill all the ice giants. I don't see any ice giants around here do you??
I don't see an afterlife.
I don't see a lot of saliva, either. And since the Pope made it a law, I'm still not seeing any breast feeding in church either. Go figure...
No god can be demonstratedany more visible, detectable, or relevant than any other god, myth, fairy, unicorn, leprechaun, etc, etc, etc...
All hail the mighty Thor!
How can anyone seriously have a debate with a believer?
That is like having a math debate with someone who believers 2 plus 2 is 5.
You can't debate someone's opinion, which is exactly what you believers have, an opinion.
One that is not backed up by one shred of hard evidence.
This is gods truth right here...
I am believer and i also believe 2 2 is 4.
What is infinity infinity? Who cares. Superficial.
nye is a better dancer than a debater.
Jeebus Capt, you have time to post that many things here?
That is some dedication you have trying to make your dog understand why you have to pay the cable bill.
Says the guy who didn't actually watch the debate. If you had you would have seen Ham stumbling over his tounge while Nye verbally waltzed all over him.