Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham


Anyone watch this debate last night? Thoughts?

Also, has Bill Nye debated any heavyweights?




So far, seems like 2 extremists to me.

The truth lies in the middle (hint: in The Church :))


Is living next to Ed Begley Jr. rubbing off on Bill Nye? :stuck_out_tongue:

I know he’s big on man-made climate change (unfortunately), but he really seems upset over this.


Honestly, it wasn’t much of a “debate” proper, more like two separate presentations. Add that to the fact that it didn’t seem like there was actually one single topic they were supposed to address. Nye doesn’t think that someone can advance science and be inventors, engineers, geneticists, etc… without believing in Naturalism. Well, Ham showed within minutes of the start that isn’t true. Someone’s stance on Creationism doesn’t prevent them from being true scientists, quite the opposite and that is easy to prove by showing all the Creationists down through history and in the present that are indeed truly scientists, engineers, botanists, etc…

If the debate was supposed to offer a bunch of evidence for either side, then they both failed. I say Ham won just because of Nye saying odd theological statements and then saying, “I’m not a theologian.” Well, you were right; you’re not. :shrug:


I would go so far as to say Creationism contradicts Scripture, and I don’t agree with it. It’s good that they did this, but I’m siding with Bill Nye.


I’m assuming you mean you think that Young Earth Creationism as held to by Ken Ham is wrong, not Creationism itself… or do you not believe God created everything? :confused:


I have to agree with Jerry Coyne, debating young earth creationism is a bad idea because it lends credibility to the beliefs. It would be on par with debating someone from the flat earth society. In the end their beliefs are so convoluted and bizarre that it isn’t possible to have an ineligible debate with them.


Young earth, yes. I don’t believe 6,000 years is enough for humans to evolve into sentient creatures capable of holding knowledge and building capable civilizations. I do subscribe to the notion of intelligent design, however.


Ham got utterly destroyed and offered no evidence to back up his absurd claims other than “You won’t there” or “There is a book that says…” and came across as rather…unpleasant.

Bill Nye on the other hand offered evidence backed up by years and years of research and scientific study, while being respectful of religious beliefs. We need more Nyes.


I found Bill Nye to be lacking in the latest of scientific findings. It sounded like he was parroting what he learned in college 40 years ago. There is a lot that has changed.

The idea that if we do not believe in evolution we cannot be inventors or engineers is laughable. Modern science came about because Catholics knew the world to be intelligible and worthy of study. Not so for the pagans.

He made a great case for Intelligent Design twice when he referenced CSI.

Ham could have been better. But he consistently pointed out the difference between observational science and historical science. I think this distinction has to be made and is not in the public eye.


I don’t agree. Ham had a strategy. He continually pointed out that modern science is religious when it moves outside of observational science.

Nye went on to claim the extinctions of species are due to man. The great majority of extinctions happened even before man was on the scene. He betrayed his own ideology there.

Ham slam dunked Nye about the joys of discovery.

Nye was right when he stated humans were not getting smarter. In fact we are devolving.


And this is something that those trained in Philosophy can clearly see. Naturalism and Materialism have become assumed in modern “science.” I really wish someone would have quoted the old saying, “Theology is the queen of the sciences and Philosophy is her handmaid” to Nye.


The implications of the lack of philosophical training is that we have become a secular society as well as scientism.

Continuing on with what they teach in science and the lack of philosophy will be America’s demise. The atheists will win but they might not like the results.


Help me out here.

So Bill Nye, the TV personality that most kids watch to get some science is an athiest. Not only that but he now debates on it?

I guess I should of known in that he was on public TV but it is so difficult when parents are searching for something to show their children. I wish they would post who they are before they produces shows for everyone’s children to watch but then I guess many would not watch.

How about Mr. Wizard?


I know lots of scientist folk who are definitely not atheists, and who are even devout Christians - Catholics even. Bill Nye in his debate acknowledged that most Christians, good and sincere people, do believe that evolution as a reasonable theory. For one, I recall Pope John Paul ll issuing a statement on creationism, and saying that evolutionary theory did not contradict Christian beliefs

I personally found one of my courses in college, Human Physiology, to be a profound experience and evidence of God’s Providence. “Intelligent design” had not yet become a catchphrase, but it certainly would have applied!


**Ham could have used this.

A powerful must see video:

**The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism **

The Similarity Between Science and Magic

  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power

Evolution is an alternative religion


Nye was way off on his claim about shipbuilding. The Chinese had built ships as large as the ark long ago.


The debate question was “Is creation a viable model of origins?”


I did not see the debate, but one thing I get tired of is the use of the word “theory” in regard to claims about evolution. A scientific theory must have replicable experiments that yield an identical result. If it is simply an educated guess, then it is a scientific hypothesis, which is something that might be true but has not been tested to be true. Now before anyone goes off the chain, there are things within the evolution spectrum that are theories, but evolution on the whole is a hypothesis. I have had people actually argue that we must accept it as true because of the impossibility of running the proper tests on it.

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