Video link still active
Debate topic: Is creationism a viable alternative explanation for our origins?
Will be updating regularly throughout the broadcast.
Notes:
---
-- Ken Ham had a shameless promotion for his museum before the debate aired. Reason #1 why this debate shouldn't have happened in the first place since it gives more publicity to an organization peddling lies and misinformation
Introduction
-- Ham (1) - there is a difference between historical and observational science. Creationism should replace historical science (i.e., evolution)
-- Nye (1) - there is no difference between historical and observational science. Historical science has been instrumental in helping observational science make progress and there is no reason to think the natural laws do not apply throughout all of time. Creationism cannot help us explain anything.
---
Debate
-- Ham (2):
- Ken Ham introduced us to more scientists that endorse biblical creationism
- Introduced an astronomer that thinks there is nothing in astronomy that contradicts biblical creationism
- Ham believes that evolution cannot explain the "laws of logic"
- Ham continues to assert that historical science has no validity (has presented no evidence yet)
- Ham challenges Nye to give an example of any technology that requires historical science in order to have been invented. Claims that observational science is only needed to create a better world and that this is simply a debate of "worldviews" of origins.
- Claim bible can make testable predictions about universe, humans, etc.
- Proposes "creation orchard" as model explaining that intraspecies variation occurs, but "one kind can't turn into another"
- Science AND evolution has been hijacked by "secularists"
- Claims "observational genetics" refutes evolution of life
- You can't observe the age of the Earth
- "Creationists should be educating kids because we're teaching them how to think."
- Social morals are failing because of the "religion of naturalism"
-- Nye (2)
- Atmospheric, ecological, and biological continuity - there is not one example of anything "out of place"
- The number of "kinds" claimed to have existed at the beginning of creation (7000) can't explain how many species there are on the planet today (~16 million)
- Discusses why it's impossible that Noah's Ark could have been built with 8 unskilled workers AND survive a global flood (this is getting ridiculous)
- Demonstrates how natural laws like evolution make consistent predictions (uses Tiktaalik as example)
- Insists that our ability to make predictions is imperative for civilization
- Describes the story of how we discovered the Big Bang using radio astronomy (emphasis on how scientific theory made a valid prediction)
- Asks how there could be billions of stars more than 6,000 light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old (says same for trees, rocks, life, etc.)
---
Rebuttals
Ham (3):
- All of sciences dating methods get "different dates" that contradict one another (particularly radioactive dating)
- Scientific evidence contradicts Biblical literalism, so science is wrong
Nye (3):
- The dating methods are very reliable.
- Questions Ham's logic regarding all animals as sinners if death is caused by sin
- Your assertion that all animals were vegetarians before the flood requires more evidence.
- The information you use to justify your belief structure is not valid
Ham (4):
- Plugs creation science "research" and website
- Claims that all animals were vegetarians before flood, cites examples of animals with sharp teeth that do not eat meat to contradict Nye's assertion that Lion's couldn't have been vegetarians
- Claims that ancient technology is better than modern technology which explains how Noah could have built the ark. Asserts Noah could have made the largest wooden boat ever made.
Nye (4):
- I'm not convinced that ancient shipwrights could have built a boat of that size. No evidence of this.
- Christians can embrace their religion and still believe in evolution. Asks Ken Ham what happens to religious people who believe in evolution?
- No real difference between observational/historical science
- We need more scientists and engineers to help us build a better America, and it's imperative that they study evolution
Ham (5)
- God created the stars to show us how great He is. Show us He is an infinite all-knowing God.
- The more that you understand that He is infinite, the more you realize how lucky we are that He picked our planet to create humans and that he came down to rescue us.
Nye (6)
- Let's keep searching the answers we don't know yet.
- Nobody knows why the universe is expanding, wouldn't it be amazing if someone from your town discovered this and helped us figure out what happened before the Big Bang?
Ham (7)
- There is a book that tells us where everything came from. We don't need to figure that out.
- Just because the majority believe something (in regards to scientists believing in evolution) doesn't make it true.
Nye (7)
- If anybody makes a discovery that changes natural law, we embrace him or her. If you find something that challenges common thought we celebrate that. We don't believe what we believe based on majorities.
- I don't know how consciousness emerges from matter. But mysteries drive scientists, we want to figure this out.
- If we don't embrace science we will fall behind economically.
Ham (8)
- I want to stress that the Bible tells us where consciousness came from, God gave it to us.
- I love the joy of discovery because I'm discovering God's universe.
- What would change my mind? "No one is every going to convince me that Gods words are not true"
- Part of the scientific discovery is figuring out how Noah's Ark was built
Nye (8)
- There are tons of things you could show me that would make me change my mind. You can't say that.
- What scientific view supports the age of the Earth? "Radiometric evidence is pretty compelling."
- The evidence suggests that a global flood never happened.
Ham (9)
- "Can you reconcile the speed with which continents are drifting?" At the time of the flood there was a catastrophic break up of the Earth's plates, and what we see today is a remnant of those plates
Nye (9)
- "What is the second law of thermodynamics?" Explain entropy textbook style.
Ham (10)
- Energy and matter will never produce life.
- You cannot ever prove using the scientific method the age of the Earth. You can't do that.
Nye (10)
- You are just asking us to take your interpretation of the Bible as literal truth.
- "Is there room in science for God?" We have used the body of knowledge of science and the process of science to create the modern world, and that is not consistent with a higher power.
Ham (11)
- God is necessary for science because you have to assume the "laws of logic".
- Christianity and science go hand in hand. We love science.
- "Do you believe the entire Bible literally?" There are certain parts that are literal and some other parts poetry.
Nye (11)
- "Have you ever thought evolution was accomplished with divine intervention?" The idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of events in the universe is one that we can't know. When it comes to intelligent design, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature.
- Natural selection produces complexity from the bottom-up without mind, just variation and selection.
Ham (12):
- Show me an example of a brand new function that evolved today.
- Any scientist that creates new technology is using creationism to make that technology. They are using the laws of logic.
- Some of the greatest scientists were creationists and our kids won't be able to advance in our culture without learning about God's universe.
Nye (12)
- Your model of creationism has no predictive quality.
- "How can you explain human high intelligence in the past?" Our intellect has allowed us to dominate the world. Our capacity to reason allowed us to show up. Being smarter is not an inherent property of evolution, but it seems to be selected for now.
Ham (13)
- "What do you base your belief on?" There is a book called the Bible that is very unique. There is no other book out there that tells you the origin of everything.
- God will reveal himself to you if you let Him.
Nye (13)
- I base my belief on the process of science. It fills me with joy that we can pursue these answers. We are one of the ways that the universe knows itself.
- The process of science, the way we know nature, is the most compelling thing to me.
- We will be outcompeted by other economies if we don't embrace science education.
I just came across this quote and it made me think of the creationist arguments: ― Bertrand Russell, Why Men FightMen fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid ... Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.”
Pasting my comment from the other thread because this one has more information on it: I watched the whole thing from when it started. It was absolutely fascinating, but it was clear that Ken Ham couldn't hold a candle to Nye-- and that was to be expected. Of course Bill is correct in what he's stating, and of course Ken is an extremely literalist Christian, but it was an important thing to see because, while he's completely wrong, Ham's view is gaining a lot of traction everywhere. He couldn't carry himself though. He dodged many questions, and even after Nye called him out, he continued to ignore them. His logic was unbelievably circular more times than I could believe. I thought he'd at least have oratory skills or pull at pathos (which he did in the latter to some degree, that's where most of this is built: on comfort in the believes he's espousing instead of the vastness of science), but it felt like a very close-minded man speaking out of his league. I'd imagine people on the fence that have the any semblance of critical thought found what he said to be extremely unsatisfactory, while opposite him you had a very lively and informative Bill Nye. I found him to be fun and fascinating much like I did when I was a child, and I learned a great deal of new information tonight. I absolutely adored his little asides about fun facts, or quotes, or some history, or just little jokes (I burst out laughing at work at his joke about his boss towards the end.) This seemed to me, before the event and up until the rebuttal phase, to simply be a publicity grab for Ham. No matter what would happen, he'd be getting exposure at a very public event with a very public figure, and people who already share his view or near his view will easily be swayed to what he believes, but Nye was so charismatic I think it wholely failed to do that. He looked absolutely beaten and rattled towards the end and even my cold, black, cynical heart felt like if I was someone wary of science or evolution or anything around that whole side of the debate, even if I had a religious background, I would be persuaded by Nye. He was that well spoken throughout this.
How much longer until the South Park episode about this?
1/2 hour is WAY too long for each person to soap box.
IMO Ham did alright, but he kept relating everything back to the bible. His main point was that there's no way to objectively know the past, and thus we need to rely on the bible for the truth. While Nye was just focusing on showing how we know what happened in the past using methods that we use today. That's basically it.
Frankly, I didn't watch this because i don't think Ken Ham deserves my attention or my attendance.
I don't think this should be happening. I didn't make that decision and I wouldn't ever debate a creationist. But since it is, it's always important to know what your enemy is up to.
Hey, I'm with you man. But these 5 year olds have challenged political policy and education throughout history, and they still continue to. I don't need to know about why some people don't believe the holocaust happened because they aren't threatening education in North America, but these people are, so I need to know about them.
Fair, yeah. I was just having this discussion with my roommate ... it's unclear to me what we can really do about creationists, or how much of an impact they're having. Also, you can't really change someone's mind just by telling them they're wrong. So I dunno.
Definitely agree. This debate was ridiculous and proved nothing. It shouldn't have happened. But now it's transcribed so you can see the ridiculousness.
Had time to view about half of it. The transcription was helpful. The ridiculous nature reminds me of helping some my 8th graders learn about math topics they just aren't ready to hear yet. Many of them make strides and put the facts together. Most every class will have kids that cannot see the Pythagorean Theorem at this point in their development, but given time some will make sense of it, or at least see the value in it.
Two types of people hear the debate: closed-minded and open-minded. The closed-minded don't matter, they're not changing their minds. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I find it hard to imagine an open-minded Evolutionist hearing the debate and thinking "This is a debate of equals, Creationism must be a valid position." Ham's arguments are just too fallacious. But suppose I'm an open-minded, rational Creationist. I'm a kid, or maybe a twenty-something, in Tennessee. I grew up learning Creationism from my church and school. I'm not about to buy a Dawkins book; I have too much else to read, and I "know" Creationism is true anyway. But suppose I hear the debate. Nye's arguments on the whole make a lot more sense than Ham's, even if I believe Ham's theistic tangents. So the seed of skepticism is planted. From a rational perspective, I understand the "don't acknowledge them" argument. But from a sociological perspective, I really think this did more good than harm. By the way, part of the reason I think the debate was good for those reasons, is because I was that kid.I don't think this should be happening
I think the debate was a good thing for science, and here's why:
So the seed of skepticism is planted.
That's what I think is so important about this. It makes those with any sort of open minded view who watched to at least question what may have been spoon fed to them their entire lives.
It was a trap and Nye fell right into it. You don't debate insanities and put creationism on the same level as science. It's like debating the universe with an astronomer and an astrologer. Fools don't deserve our respect, not even our sympathy. They should be exposed for what they truly believe or at least ignored.
I transcribed until the end. The final statements are written pretty much word for word.