|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Was Bill Nye wrong to debate Ken Ham?
Many prominent scientists refuse to debate creationists because it implies evolution and creationism are on equal footing. Never mind that these kinds of debates rarely, if ever, change minds, is it wrong that they happen? Is Bill Nye giving weight to a non-scientific theory or is he extending an olive branch between two sides that continuously butt heads?
Personally, I thought the debate was a dumb idea for both parties.
The first thing I noticed is that the debate shouldn't be "Evolution vs. Creation" because these two things explain two very different ideas. Creation explains WHY we're here, in addition to how things got here. Evolution is a system that describes how we got from "point A to point B", but leaves the question of how and why we got to point A in the first place unanswered. So there's already a major difference.
It would have been better to make this a "abiogenesis vs. creation" debate.
I was also kind of disappointed how Ken Ham used some of the weakest evidence when making his case. Here I was thinking he'd mention the incredible complexity of the human eye or the physiognomy of the bombardier beetle--things that just couldn't have developed in stages...but no, he cites only the Bible, leaves out a ton of other tangible, quantifiable evidence out. And he seems to just be under the assumption that if you're not a young-earth creationist, you're doing Christianity wrong. Uh...no.
And I really wish it wasn't Bill Nye that was presenting the case for Evolution. I know the guy is smart, a great inventor, and a good author, but he's not an Evolutionary biologist. At all. He got a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering at Cornell (along with some "honorary doctorates" that let him guest-teach basic astronomy and ecology). That hardly qualifies him to have this debate, in my honest opinion.
I am right now working toward this same degree, and nothing in the degree program has anything remotely to do with Evolution, Darwin, radiocarbon dating, or any of that jazz. Sorry Nye, the degree means nothing in this debate.
I'd like to see a do-over of this debate with an actual Evolutionary biologist and a Christian who brings more evidence to the table than the English translation of the Bible (better yet, a Christian who actually understands the Hebrew words being used in the original text...or someone like Steven C. Meyer). Then, they should be discussing abiogenesis vs. creation. That would be a debate worth watching!
Interesting question! Thanks for asking!
M.T., great question. Bill Nye is not a prominent scientist. He's a TV personality with some science background.
An olive branch is good, but Ken Ham does not represent all Christians or believers. Ham once asked his audience, "Who do you believe, God or science?" Of course, his audience answered, "God." But Ham had loaded the question with a false dichotomy. It's not science versus God, but science versus Ken Ham and his limited and literal interpretation of the Bible.
There is a biblical timeline, for instance, that is compatible with those of mainstream science. The literalists (whether atheists or creationists) will never find this -- they will never see the spirit of the Bible where Truth resides.
I object to the debate on these grounds. Both Nye and Ham don't know what they're talking about with regards to creation.
Science studies the products of God's creation. Spirituality (the core of religion) studies the sources of creation. They are complementary. Nye doesn't understand this; but sadly, neither does Ham.
I have seen miracles that confound science and I've spent my life studying science, including astronomy, electronic engineering, geology, space science, computer science and more. It's fascinating to see both sides more clearly and how they work together in harmony.
I'm happy to be among the rare few who actually does change his mind occasionally, if I hear data and logic that is compelling. Like I used to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, until I investigate Climate Gate and found fudged numbers and fraud. Nye still has delusions about this. Too many scientists have jumped the UN's IPCC ship because of fraud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ).
Concerning creationism, I believe in creation. I've seen some of it first hand (miracles), but I also believe in evolution. Ham has twisted science and scripture. He thinks death started with the Garden (Gen.3). But he's confusing spiritual death with physical death.
by EmVeeT5 years ago
I came to the HubPages Forum several months ago posting a "challenge" that must have seemed presumptuous (though I didn't intend it) or (perhaps) arrogant of me... By the end of it though, I considered my...
by Nathaniel Zhu3 years ago
Why do you think people still argue again evolution?Seriously. This is the 21st century. I'm thinking they're in denial because it's against their religion - or they're just ignorant. What do you think?
by Lela2 years ago
Who will win on May 2nd when Sarah Palin debates Bill Nye on the subject of climate change? Facts?I'm still laughing at the announcement that Sarah Palin will be debating Bill Nye on the subject of climate change. The...
by Marcy Goodfleisch9 months ago
Which is true - Creationism or Evolution? Can both be right?It seems there are still arguments about whether the world was 'created' or whether it 'evolved.' What do you believe? Can you also accept the...
by Mark Knowles8 years ago
Gardner Osagie vs Mark Knowles (consultations allowed)Osagie proposes:"Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory." Knowles is prepared to refute this and...
by Richard Parr6 years ago
“Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory” [William A. Dembski]In his article 'Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge', Dr Dembski asks...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.