Clash over worldviews: An analysis of the Ham/Nye debate

Creation Ministries International ^ | 2-6-2014 | Lita Cosner, Scott Gillis, Keaton Halley

[fishtank]

Creation was on the media’s radar again recently, thanks to the announcement that US media personality Bill Nye (best-known for his TV show ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’) would go head-to-head in a debate with creationist Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Bill Nye was actually criticized by his fellow atheists for debating a creationist. Dr Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology at the University of Chicago, says that:

The response from the evolutionist side is clear: let’s not give creation any exposure. “… he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists. By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.”1

Similarly, the high priest of evolution, Richard Dawkins, said:

“I agree that to do this on Ham’s home turf was a mistake, and indeed it is almost always a mistake to give wingnuts the oxygen of publicity, and the respectability of being seen on a platform with a real scientist, anywhere.”2

A Chicago Sun-Times article was simply titled, “Bill Nye wastes his time debating creationists”.3 The response from the evolutionist side is clear: let’s not give creation any exposure. One wonders, if creationism is not science and can be easily debunked, what are they afraid of?

[fishtank]

Left: Rapid decay of Mercury’s magnetic field strength. Right: Spacecraft measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field strength.

Russell Humphreys' predictions of Mercury's magnetic field - based on a creationist model!!!

[fishtank]

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!

[MrB]

It is not surprising that the atheists are up in arms that someone would actually ENGAGE the other side in debate.

It is SOP and a recognized tactic for secular leftists to simply dismiss their opponents as unworthy, morally and/or intellectually, of discussing issues with.

[onedoug]

They’re both nuts.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Ham vs. Nye debating Creationism vs. Evolution?

That's like Miley Cyrus vs. Justin Bieber debating different versions of String Theory.

[edcoil]

Any side the does not want open debate on any issue has already lost as they cannot allow their poor thoughts to surface in public.

[onedoug]

My poor thoughts are that successive nuclear fusion through one or more generations of previously existing heavy stars which supernovaed, were necessary to have incorporated elements heavier than carbon to the nebulae which our Sun, Earth and planets accreted from.

In processes that took likely more than a billion years prior to the solar system's development, those heavier elements could not have been generated otherwise.

I believe, with similarly based evidence, that none of this could have occurred without God's initiation of it, seemingly somewhat in opposition to both of these cranks.

I am certainly open to a more viable theory once it's been presented.

[Lou L]

I believe, with similarly based evidence, that none of this could have occurred without God's initiation of it, seemingly somewhat in opposition to both of these cranks.

I agree, that so much of this stuff is just incomprehensibly unexplainable without some Creator in the mix.

And what about "proving" that intelligent life might exist on other planets? The distances are simply so vast--even for planetary systems within our own galaxy--that it would take a stroke of luck to even detect something "man-made" coming from another planet. Not to mention, their technological history probably doesn't align with ours. Meaning, they could exist, but not be capable of transmitting signals such as radio waves; or, they could exist and be so advanced, that we don't have the capability to detect them.

[onedoug]

Are bacteria intelligent? It certainly seems so in their collective sense.

Biology should ubiquitous throughout the cosmos given carbon and water, which is all over the place. I suspect that very soon, we’ll be able to detect photosynthesis going on elsewhere. That will be the greatest discovery in human history.

[Lou L]

Biology should ubiquitous throughout the cosmos given carbon and water, which is all over the place

Well, I don't know how soon we'd actually be able to "detect" photosynthesis elsewhere, but I agree it should be ubiquitous--under the right conditions. Of course, I would not classify bacteria as intelligent, certainly not on par with human intelligence.

[fishtank]

Ummm....

... you’re getting close. Only, I wouldn’t be as cruel as you are being, but I do share your pain.

haha

The debate was a bit painful to watch. Ham and Nye were fairly evenly matched against each other, which wasn’t saying much.

After reading the comments from the two sides after the debate, both creationists and evolutionists basically said, “I feel like a Broncos fan.....”

OK, so I heard a joke this week:

Q:How many Broncos players does it take to fix a flat tire?

A: One. But if it’s a blowout, the whole team shows up.

[onedoug]

Human intelligence includes being able to abstract information from our environment. We’re in first place where that’s concerned. Yet bacteria and viruses attached to a host exhibit quite a bit of ‘cooperative’ behavior in their continual changing immunities to drug therapies meant to combat them. That, and the sobering thought that they were here long before we were, and will be here long after we’re gone.