Transcript Of Ken Ham Vs. Bill Nye Debate

Ken Ham is a Christian who established a creationist museum, he insisted the Earth still young. Ken Ham said: "Today, there is too much influence of the theory of evolution on children, we need to take the child back to the correct view of the world in this debate, and it is a good opportunity to let people know more about God, and the spread of the Gospel. "

Through the analysis of the major televised debate, held February this year, between the popular science communicator, Bill Nye, and the US-based Australian creationist, Ken Ham. It has come to light that through careful analysis and research it is my belief that scientists should not be involved within any debates “scientific” or otherwise regarding topics pertaining to creationism or any other religious perspective. The inappropriate use of the loose definitions of science and religion lead to the intertwining of the two subjects that are extremely different in methodology, leaving the audience up for misinterpretation. While the debate did bring about the topic to the forefront of the public, which in itself was a positive, I do not believe that the post debate result was a win for science. Bill Nye’s derogatory demeanour represented post debate towards Ken Ham was in turn a representation of institutional science. Leading to which the validity of the debate and post debate could be brought into question.

The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools, is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in Genesis, to fit into the ÒblikÓ of the religious fundamentalist. A blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set worldview held by all people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, whose faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a place in the science classroom of public schools.

When comparing science and religion there has been a great rift. As long as humanity has believed in a creator there as always been thinkers trying to quantify and evaluate the truth behind religion, trying to disprove or prove a supernatural force.

The Dawkins chapter speaks about the debate between religion and science and how religious people refuse to even give science teachers and professors the time of day. Most of the time people will refuse to listen to what has been proven due to their religious beliefs. Evolution professors have even been threatened with the loss of their jobs. Even though, many professors have tried to explain that evolution is a fact and one of the greatest of God’s works, still their time is wasted. The pope and educated priests and professors of theology have been known to no longer have a problem with evolution because they understand that evolution is a fact and not intended to be an anti-religious study.

There have been attempts to dethrone God from His rightful position as a creator and at the helm of this is evolution theory. The bible clearly states that the world is 6,000 years today but when you read scientific articles it will tell you the world has been in existence for billions of years.

The debate between creationists and evolutionists has been raging on for centuries. The clash between these opposing views was illustrated through the debate of Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Bill Nye being from the evolutionist side, and Ken Ham from the creationist. After the debate was over the winner I believe was quite evident, Bill Nye. I believe that Bill Nye won because his arguments were concrete, accurate and relatable. He argued over the age of the age of Earth , the validity of the story of "Noah's Ark", and the possibility that all animals were once herbivores.

In early February of this year there was a much publicized debate between Bill Nye of early 90’s “Bill Nye the Science Guy” television fame and the CEO of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham. The topic of debate was whether or not a creationists model of origins is viable given the modern scientific era. This topic was one of great interest to many people as evidenced by the nearly eight hundred thousand individuals who viewed the debate online by way of an internet live stream, not to mention the fact that the video of the debate has been viewed on YouTube over three and a half million times. Its exposure alone makes it of great interest and should cause our ears to perk up. The content of this debate has been widely accessed and like it or not, many people were influenced by either of these two men, if not both. Given the influence of the celebrity status of Mr. Nye among the secular community and the widely popular evangelical Mr. Ham, both the church and the secular community were tuning in for this debate. So depending on the results and the methodology used, this could have either been very beneficial for the church or very detrimental, which is all the more reason for us to be paying attention. Can you believe in the Big Bang Theory and still be a Christian?

In 2011, the Barna Group completed and published the results of a five-year study on why many teens are turning away from Christian churches. The research showed that one-fourth of these skeptical young adults felt that “Christianity is anti-science” . This statistic should not be too surprising because Christians are notorious for their steadfast beliefs in Genesis 1 which states that the universe was created by God in just 6 days. Obviously, this tale contradicts countless scientific records and theories, making a life of faith practically unachievable for any science-minded individual. But contrary to popular belief, no one has to choose a side. There is no need to abandon trust in a higher power for scientific evidence or vice versa

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis teach us about the natural world and that God created everything. The argument of evolution can be proved wrong reading the first chapter of Genesis. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth” (Genesis 1:1, NLT) He created the world in six days, on each day he would add something new to his list of creations such as light, darkness, sky, seas, plants and animals, and finally man and woman “On the seventh day God had

Creation science, on the other hand, is not science but pseudoscience and it is connected to a particular group of fundamentalist Christians. Most Christians,

Evolution has been debated for many years. Most scientists assume evolution to be true, but it is not officially proven. Evolution is known as “fact and theory,” because it is a fact that organisms have changed over time, but the mechanism that changes those organisms is uncertain. One of the major debates regarding evolution is the belief in creationism. Creationists believe that the Universe and organisms on Earth were all created by a divine power. There are also some theories in which creationism and evolution coexist. One idea is that the divine being who created the world used evolution as a method. Another idea is that science and religion are actually the same thing and religion explains the unknown parts of science. For example, science says that the world couldn’t have been created in seven days, but one of God’s days may not be the same length

It is for this reason that the debate is also not between science and Christianity. Each advocate for each position is attempting to reconcile the apparent differences between science and Christianity. It is simply the case that they each take a different approach and give different amounts of authority to science and a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Science “aims to save the spirit, not by surrender but by the liberation of the human mind” (Wilson, 7). Both religion and science seek to explain the unknown. Instead of surrendering reasoning with the traditional religion, a scientific approach one takes full authority over it. Being an empiricist, Wilson takes favors the scientific approach to the question: “why are things the way they are?” This question can pose two meanings: How did this happen, and what is the purpose. Traditional religion answers this question with stories, many of which are impossible to prove or disprove, making them arguments of ignorance. These explanations entail the adherent surrender reasoning and put faith in the resolution. According to Wilson these are always wrong (Wilson, 49). Science is the most effective way to learn about the natural world. Religion is merely speculation.