Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Science Guy: Nye Sure to Lose [Video]

ham
Across America, the debate between creationism and evolution continues to rage. Now, world-renowned scientist Bill Nye is set to debate Ken Ham who is the president of an Apologetics ministry, Answers in Genesis, as well as the Creation Museum. However, regardless of any facts or elements of reasoning, “The Science Guy,” is sure to lose this debate, as would any scientist in a creationism vs evolution debate like this one.

Evolutionists have been scratching their heads at the idea of a scientist giving any sort of credence to creationist theories. They argue that a forum such as this upcoming debate only props up those who believe in intelligent design as the architect of life.

However, that is not the real reason why evolutionists are so steadfastly against this debate. Frankly, the ball is in Ham’s court and it is Nye’s game to lose.

First of all, there is the issue of the venue. Essentially, Ham will be on his home turf inside the Creation Museum. Tickets for the event sold out long ago, but it would not be surprising if a great number of those purchases were fellow creationists.

On top of that, there will be a world watching. Students at Liberty University will be watching the entire ordeal via live stream, and it is likely that hundreds of thousands of other individuals will closely follow the action during and after the February 4 debate. After all, with about 50 percent of the country in support of creationism and only 15 percent sure that evolutionary theories are true, Nye has the odds stacked against him in terms of his audience.

As well, Ham knows what he’s talking about, and there is some debate over whether or not Nye will be as prepared. Both men are skilled oral communicators, but Ham is the more well versed as a debater. Furthermore, Ham knows his theories and Nye’s theories inside and out, whereas Nye is not actually an evolutionary biologist at all, and his experience with creationism to this point seems to be the continual assertion that creationists are wrong because science said so.

However, most importantly is the “quit while you’re ahead,” concept. Evolution is already considered fact; it is a theory that has somehow cemented itself as the only viable belief system in Western schools and text books. In terms of creationism vs evolution, evolutionists have already claimed victory. If Ken Ham is to out perform Bill Nye, the repercussions in the scientific community could be quite significant. Evolutionists may have their coveted seat of being the only theory that is fact further eroded, and other viable concepts may come to the forefront once again. Say what you will, but even if he wins by most measures, ‘The Science Guy,” is sure lose.

That’s right; even if Nye is to make better, more factual, and simply more convincing arguments than Ham, he is nonetheless a servant to the fact that his side has already won. It is expected in the academic community that creationists are fundamentally unintelligent people, and if one of these people proves to be rational and coherent, it would be a disaster for science as it is known today.

This points to a much larger problem, though. Of course creationism is not the same as evolution in terms of its support within the scientific community and in regard to its compatibility with some other scientific theories. However, that does not mean that it is a view-point that makes people unintelligent or irrational.

The idea that science cannot evolve or accommodate other theories is preposterous and fundamentally flawed. Simply to call another theory wrong and to advocate aggressively to ignore it is not rooted in any sort of scientific method. Intelligent discourse is required, criticism of long-held theories is required, and by consequence, considering other view points honestly is required for science to make any sort of progress.

The scientific community is afraid of this upcoming Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate for the same reasons that the Catholic Church was afraid of the protestant reformation and the enlightenment. The criticisms of evolution, regardless of whether or not they are true, are valid arguments that should be discussed. The fact that so many are criticizing “The Science Guy’s” decision on the grounds that other view points should not be heard is extremely alarming. Much like the Catholic Church vs Martin Luther, this is a debate where Nye is sure to lose; but evolutionists should not be afraid of the results. After all, the Catholic Church is still standing.

Opinion By Brett Byers-Lane

Liberty.edu
Washington Post
NBC News

18 Responses to "Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Science Guy: Nye Sure to Lose [Video]"

  1. evolve1   February 2, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    “Simply to call another theory wrong and to advocate aggressively to ignore it is not rooted in any sort of scientific method.”

    The problem with this statement is that neither creationism nor intelligent design (which has been proved to just be creationism repackaged to try to get around court rulings) are in any way remotely scientific theories. They are nothing but superstitious drivel that consigns human progress in understanding the universe to throwing our hands up in the air and proclaiming “God did it”. If we allowed this idiotic point of view to hold sway every time such superstitious people objected to a scientific discovery that contradicts their misguided interpretations of Stone Age fairy tales, we’d all still be living in the Dark Ages, still burning people like Copernicus and Galileo at the stake, or placing them under house arrest for the rest of their lives, just for saying that maybe a bunch of ignorant sheep herders living in the. Middle East 6000 thousand years ago didn’t have all the answers to how the universe formed and continues to function. Rejecting an actual theory out of hand is not scientific, but rejecting completely unsupported superstition based on the campfire stories of a band of Stone Age nomads when it is completely contradicted by even single relevant scientific discovery over the last 150 years is.

  2. chris   February 2, 2014 at 8:09 pm

    (From the article) “The idea that science cannot evolve or accommodate other theories is preposterous and fundamentally flawed.”

    The problem here is, that creationism is not a theory. It’s not even a valid hypothesis. By the author’s reasoning, geocentricity should have equal consideration in astronomy, and alchemy should be seriously discussed alongside chemistry. Perhaps science should give consideration to the stork theory when discussing the topic of reproduction as well?

    • G   February 4, 2014 at 4:41 pm

      Your comparison compares two concepts that are completely different. Geocentricism, and alchemy have both been proven as untrue.

      However, you cannot claim the same for creationism for the exact same reason that creationists cannot claim that evolution is not the origin of mankind. Although there is lots of evidence supporting evolution as the origin of mankind it is not the only theory that has managed to explain human existence. There are proponents of the theory that extraterrestrials helped humans develop. Perhaps a more likely theory is that life was started by early lifeforms that arrived on earth by “piggybacking” on space debris that hurtled to earth’s lithosphere. Or perhaps, as creationists would state, the universe and everything in it was created by one (or multiple) god(s).

      So, the issue that the author brings up when he says “The idea that science cannot evolve or accommodate other theories is preposterous and fundamentally flawed.” is a very valid statement. Science CANNOT seem to evolve or accommodate other theories (and yes I do call creationism a theory because it has not been disproven) just as other theories cannot seem to give credence to science.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login