Bill Nye (tge science guy) vs. Ken Ham debate

These to debated last night about creation and evolution and a few other topics. Anyone watch it? What are your thoughts?

debatelive.org/ here’s a link with details

:shrug: Without even watching it, I can already tell you it only serves to perpetuate the false dichotomy of religion v science.

This. Both of them are coming at the debate from illogical positions, and all you get in that instance is an illogical train-wreck. The only benefit I can see from listening to the debate is to get an idea of where each is coming from.

I

Without even watching it, I can already tell you it only serves to perpetuate the false dichotomy of religion v science.

Exactly. There’s no contradiction between religious truth and science.

After actually watching it I can tell you that Bill Nye was asked about the crossover of religion and science. He noted he was fine with religion so long as it reconciles with the scientific evidence.

I’ve always like Bill Nye. I wish he weren’t an atheist, but he, along with Neil Degrasse Tyson, have always seemed to put forward a positive opinion of religious belief, Christianity in particular, even if they do not believe in God themselves.

I agree with the previous posters though, that debates of this nature tend to only encourage the false belief that religion and science are incompatible.

whoa thanks for sharing that! My internet crapped out at the beginning of the question section so I missed that one. Good for bill nye then. That statement kinda matches what everyone here has stated. Science and religion don’t have to be put against each other. I don’t think they contradict. I personally don’t believe genesis should be taken literal which is where Ken ham falls apart. I REALLY wish Trent horn could’ve debated him instead

I’m sorry, but I can’t see how the religious concept of Young Earth Creationism that Ken Hm espouses is compatible with modern scientific knowledge in any way.

I whipped out the old transcribing skills from back when I was in college. Here’s my best effort, and it comes from 2 hours and 21 minutes into the video. Any spelling mistakes or misheard words are my fault:

Moderator: Is there room for God in science?

Nye: Well, we remind us there are billions of people around the world who are religious and who accept science and who embrace it and especially all the technology that brings us. Is there anyone here who doesn’t have a mobile phone that has a camera? Is there anyone here whose family members have not benefited from modern medicine? Is there anyone here who doesn’t use emails? Or anybody here who doesn’t eat? Because we use information sent from satellites in space to plant seeds on our farms. That’s how we’re able to feed 7.1 billion people where we used to barely be able to feed a billion.

So that’s what I see. That’s what science what the process… Science for me is two things. It’s the knowledge (the atomic number of Rubidium) and it’s the process, the means by which we make these discoveries.

So for me that’s not really that connected with your belief in a spiritual being or a higher power. If you reconcile those two. Scientists, the head of the National Institutes of Health is a devout Christian. There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. The exception is you, Mr. Ham. That’s the problem for me. You want us to take your word for what’s written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see around us. The evidence for for a higher power for me and spirituality is, for me, separate. I encourage you to take the next minute and address the problem of the fossils, this problem of the ice layers, this problem of the ancient trees, this problem of the Ark. I mean really address it. And so then we can move forward; but right now I see no incompatability between religions and science.

Moderator: That’s time. Mr. Ham, response?

Ham: I actually want to take a minute to address the question. Let me just say this: My answer would be God is necessary for science. You talked about cell phones. Yeah, I have a cell phone. I love technology. I love technology here at Answers In Genesis. And I have email. Probably had millions of them while I’ve been speaking up here. And satellites and what you said, you know, about information? I agree with it. You see they are the things that can be done in the present. And that’s just like I showed you, Dr. Stuart Burgess who invented that gear set for the satellite. Creationists can be great scientists. You see God is necessary because you have to assume the laws of logic. You have to assume the laws of nature. You have to assume the uniformity of nature. And that was the question I had for you: Where does that come from if the universe is here by natural processes. Christianity and science, the Bible and science, go hand in hand. We love science, but again you’ve got to understand inventing things that’s very different than talking about our origins, two very different things.

The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity - See more at: evolutionnews.org/2014/02…CylcRVIp.dpuf

After watching Tuesday night’s Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate, I was reminded of what attracted me in the first place to the approach to investigating origins represented by the theory of intelligent design.

Sure, Ham talked about some science here and there, but almost all of what he said focused on trying to support a young earth viewpoint. Since he’s not a scientist, the great majority of his arguments amounted – over and over again – to “Because the Bible says so.” Nye’s main argument was, “Because the evidence says so,” and he cited a lot of reasonable evidence for an old earth. While Ham did make a few effective points that you don’t have to accept evolution to do good science, the compelling scientific evidence for design in nature got skipped over.

Because the focus was so overwhelmingly on the age of the earth, the point was never made that a mainstream scientific view about the age of the earth is totally compatible with an intelligent design view that totally refutes Nye’s intolerant, materialist beliefs about the history of life. For goodness sake, Bill Nye was the one defending Big Bang cosmology. Viewers would never know that the Big Bang is one of the best arguments for the design of the universe ever offered by science.

Ham made the distinction effectively several times between observational science and historical science.

That is usually the knee jerk response. We have been very well conditioned.

Nye is generally unaware of the creationist responses to modern science claims about age of earth.

Yet Nye kept hammering that America would lose the race if we subscribe to Ham’s view.

  1. There is a broad consensus among scientists regarding evolution.
  2. The Church has said that we do not have to deny evolution.

Sorry, but that’s about all I need to know. There is no genuine controversy. Creationists that are hostile towards science have invented a controversy where there is none. It pains me to see so many Catholics in denial about evolution, indeed about science in general, and all for no good reason since the Church does not stand against it.

To paraphrase that highly respected philospher, Forrest Gump:

Stupid is and Stupid does.

A pox on both their houses.:stuck_out_tongue:

Well, he didn’t actually put it that way. :slight_smile: He simply stated that science and religion are not incompatible not that religion must reconcile itself to scientific evidence. Not that I disagree with Mr. Nye, not at all. Real science and sound theology are not at odds, rather those who insist on using their flawed interpretations of the Scriptures as the basis for both science and belief that are wrong, well meaning though they may be.

Science uses tools to try to discover physical realities while religion uses some of the same tools to show that religion is right and reasonable for human beings. Their goals are not the same in that religion is not as concerned with the physicality of existence (although it does speak to it). Rather religion seeks to impart truth, both temporal and transcendent.

Science can tell us temporal truths but it cannot tell us transcendent ones in so far as that is not its purpose. Temporal truths have a bearing on transcendent truth, but being above them it is superior in that it can tell us who and what we are, why we are here, and what will become of us as creatures of the Creator. Science cannot do that, but it was not intended for that purpose.

Transcendent truth is revealed truth, not discovered truth, but it is still reasonable if not always discernible by the human mind alone. This is where faith, which is a gift, comes in. What we know/learn from revelation is more important to us as a species than what we know/learn through science, but science is still of inestimable value to us for it helps us care for ourselves and the world that God entrusted to us.

buffalo answered this pretty well I think

No need to be sorry here. Mr. Ham does not speak for the Catholic Church on this matter or any other. :wink:

YEC comes from a literalistic reading of the genealogies in the Bible–a very poor way to determine the age of the earth since the genealogies are not complete (they were never meant to give us every living person in a particular family line, but only mentions those persons of special interest, thus skipping generations/names). Also, it does not take into account how long any of those people lived. Besides this, the Bible nowhere tells us the Earth’s age nor even hints at it. YEC is sheer speculation based on faulty biblical exegesis, you see. Some of our Evangelical brethren rely on it, but we Catholics do not.

And modern science does not aim to answer the metaphysical questions it was not designed to answer. That’s no fault of science, of course. The scientific method can tell us a lot of very useful things about us humans and our universe, but only those things that pertain to our physicality, not those of our souls. Again, that is not the goal of science for which it was not designed. :slight_smile:

The eternal irony of this supposed contradiction: Religion (specifically Catholicism) is partially responsible for science even considering the creation of the universe. Before Lemaître theorized the Big Bang, secular science believed in a steady-state universe- one that had always existed and would always exist. In other words, secular science once denied that the universe was created at all. They originally regarded the Big Bang and the notion that it had been created as religious nonsense.

So in some senses, science’s search for a cause for the Big Bang is a search for God. The Big Bang (as originally theorized, not as described by M-theory) is effectively science saying “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” just without the explicit reference to God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.