Quantcast

Bill Nye Will Visit Creation Museum, Set To Debate Founder

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
[ Life]

It is certainly no secret that Bill Nye is a proponent of science, and as a result, he has taken to insulting and disproving views of creationism.

He has become a well-known scientist, and will challenge Ken Ham, the founder of the creationist museum, in a heated debate at his museum. The Creation Museum is located in Kentucky, and it is the same place that Bill Maher went to in his documentary, for those who saw his film Religulous.

Bill Nye has also appeared on RealTime With Bill Maher, giving his take on the topic of science vs. creationism already in the past year. Bill Nye believes in evolution, while Ken Ham, the founder of the museum, believes that the Earth is only thousands of years old.

The man of science became a household name, and popular with young people after being the star of his show called Bill Nye, The Science Guy, which ran from 1993 to 1998. He used the show to educate kids about the wonders of science, and made learning seem cool to young people.

Ken Ham, representing faith and creationism, and Bill Nye, who will represent science and atheism, face off in a heated debate on February 4th at Ham’s Creation Museum. The event is likely to gain the attention of people of both faith and science based groups, as both people have a large following in their respective fields.

The issue of creationism vs. science is hot topic among many people, but Ham believes bringing Bill Nye to his museum will help bring awareness of the issue to even more people, especially the younger people.

In choosing to bring Bill Nye to the debate, he said in a release on Monday, “Having the opportunity to hold a cordial but spirited debate with such a well-known personality who is admired by so many young people will help bring the creation-evolution issue to the attention of many more people, including youngsters.”

Ham has been wanting to bring Bill Nye to his museum ever since the science education advocate posted a video on Youtube that said that teaching creationism was bad for children. The video received over 6 million views, and Ham wanted the chance to be able to prove him wrong.

Bill Nye, who is currently the executive director of the Planetary Society, agreed to come to the museum for a debate last month.

The two figures will have their showdown in an event that is called “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?” Tickets to the event will be $25, if any big fans of Bill Nye are able to make the trip.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Bill Nye Will Visit Creation Museum, Set To Debate Founder
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • editor-b

    Some questions for a chaotic and friendly debate, is there evolution if there is no time? How will evolutionary biology meet new physical paradigms about time, space and so on? Will new conceptual changes deny evolution? On the contrary, will it become a more extraordinary process, full of astonishing implications? If so, will human beings and the rest of living beings become different as science progresses? Will the image in the mirror of theories change? After all, is life something fix-finite-defined? That is, can one understand it with its peculiar brain and its limited words? Will science add indefinitely without understanding completely? But, is it possible to understand something totally? Along these lines, a different book, a preview in http://goo.gl/rfVqw6 Just a suggestion, far away form dogmas or axioms

  • stephen

    The theory of evolution is factually unsubstantiated. Evidences given for it such as transitional fossils(there are none), the geologic column(only exists in textbooks), or vestigial organs(there are none) and all others have long been proven false by secular scientists. Real observable testable science shows evolution to be nothing more than a theory built as a house of cards. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/evolution

    Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Richard Weisenburg(Temple University Philadelphia, PA)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKc_iiNLJHI

    Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. Ben Waggoner(University of Central Arkansas)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOxMkX9tJI&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivpHQhRLUXmLV3nxZ_kWtND-

    www.answersingenesis.org / www.icr.org / www.evolutionvsgod.com

  • Barry Desborough

    http://ken-ham-v-bill-nye.wikispaces.com/My+advice+to+Bill

    “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?”

    Agree on Debating Conditions.

    It is a pity that the debate is not to be held at a neutral venue with a representative audience, but there we are. Remember, we are not dealing with people who have the slightest sense of truthfulness, honesty and decency.

    http://johnscorner.blogspot.fr/2009/02/honesty-its-such-lonely-word.html
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/02/02/ken-ham-doesnt-believe-his-own-lies/

    Allowing them full control of the conditions will be asking to be ripped to shreds.

    I suggest you ask Ken Ham to engage with you in writing, in public, to come to an agreement on the conditions under which you will debate. I suggest the following:
    You agree the format, giving each equal time to present your arguments and to respond to one another’s arguments.
    You agree not to interrupt one another.
    You agree on what presentation technology you can each use.
    You agree to restrict your arguments to those which are directly relevant to the debate topic.
    You agree on definitions pertaining to the debate proposal.
    You agree to have several independent people/organizations record and publish the debate in full.

    If Ken Ham refuses to engage with you over conditions, and you still wish to go ahead, bring the fact up in the debate.

    Re. definitions, “creation” should be tied down to Ham’s own notion of creation – everything created in six literal 24 hour days some 6,000 – 10,000 years ago. “Origins” can mean origins of the universe, of life, of species, of geological strata, of scripture, or any agreed combination. This is very important, to preempt any weaseling over definitions when backed into a corner, as creationists so often try to do.

    Strategy

    If you can keep the debate to a discussion of the proposal, you can have Ken Ham on the defensive all the time. You are not there to defend biology, cosmology, astronomy, geology and origin of life research. Any mention of these, and you can rightly accuse Ham from straying from the subject of the debate. He is there to defend creationism as a viable model of origins.

    You are there to point out why creationism is not a viable model of origins. Use the evidence, but not in defense of the sciences that creationists abhor. Use the evidence to point out precisely what creationism cannot explain. An explanation makes it clear why things are one way and not some other way. This is creationism’s greatest weakness. It cannot do that. Here are some of my favorite topics that illustrate the point:

    Orthologous endogenous retroviruses. Creationists have no explanation for them. It makes no sense for a creator to place unnecessary, false traces of retroviral integrations in our genomes. See http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
    Astronomy – esp. supernovae and pulsars, which cannot be explained within a young earth scenario. See http://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/additional_topics/supernova.html
    Consilient dating methods. Why do so many lines of evidence lead to “wrong” results, but happen to agree with one another? See http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SmiJ8MY1BkkJ:razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    In each of these cases, from the creationist viewpoint, God has planted fake evidence unnecessarily. They cannot explain any necessity for it. This is what destroys its viability.

    By the way, I mentioned the origin of scripture above. Is creation a viable model for it? Most Biblical scholars would disagree, and would present very good evidence for their position – but maybe that is straying too much onto Ham’s turf.

    My advice – pick a few topics that you are very familiar with where creationism cannot explain the evidence – topics that include, from a creationist’s point of view, fake evidence for which they cannot provide any explanation. Search the net for any attempts at ‘explanation’ or damage limitation by creationists. Become familiar with them and with rebuttals of them.

    If you want to discuss this with me, please get in touch. My email is my first name, a dot, my second name, at gmail dot com.

    Good luck! :)

    Barry Desborough