Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

[DerMißingno]

In case you haven't heard, science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society Bill Nye had a debate with bestselling author Ken Ham about creationism and evolutionary science. If you would like to watch it, here is the video:

[video=youtube;z6kgvhG3AkI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/video]

I believe there was some controversy over whether a high profile science advocate should engage in such a debate. Do you think it should have happened, and now that it has happened, do you think it was constructive, or was it pointless?

 

[GastlyGibus]

I absolutely believe it should have happened, and I think it should continue happening. There are strengths and weaknesses to both sides, and I think it's rather silly to say that you shouldn't debate it. If you're so confident in your position, crushing the inferior view (in their minds) should be easy.

But I have to say, I was extremely disappointed with it. It felt horribly rushed, and as a result, neither side got to clearly demonstrate their points. Important parts of both arguments were glanced over (Ken Ham quickly brought up DNA and intelligent information, then just as quickly abandoned the subject due to time constraints), and nothing new was covered.

I've read Ken Ham's books and seen his research, and I'm familiar with Bill Nye's viewpoint and theories as well, so I know these two men are intelligent, well versed in their fields, and have very good points to get across, however I didn't see any of that here. Anything of substance was glanced over, and nobody got anywhere with their arguments. If they had more time, it would have been very interesting and thought provoking, and while this debate was interesting, it just left me wanting more.

Five minute counter argument... really? I can't even take a shower in five minutes, and you want him to provide a counter-argument in that time?

 

[The_Pikachu]

I absolutely believe it should have happened, and I think it should continue happening. There are strengths and weaknesses to both sides, and I think it's rather silly to say that you shouldn't debate it. If you're so confident in your position, crushing the inferior view (in their minds) should be easy.

But I have to say, I was extremely disappointed with it. It felt horribly rushed, and as a result, neither side got to clearly demonstrate their points. Important parts of both arguments were glanced over (Ken Ham quickly brought up DNA and intelligent information, then just as quickly abandoned the subject due to time constraints), and nothing new was covered.

I've read Ken Ham's books and seen his research, and I'm familiar with Bill Nye's viewpoint and theories as well, so I know these two men are intelligent, well versed in their fields, and have very good points to get across, however I didn't see any of that here. Anything of substance was glanced over, and nobody got anywhere with their arguments. If they had more time, it would have been very interesting and thought provoking, and while this debate was interesting, it just left me wanting more.

Five minute counter argument... really? I can't even take a shower in five minutes, and you want him to provide a counter-argument in that time?

Well, that's TP debate for you sort of.... I'm an Creationist, and like it or not, sometimes I don't believe in Ken Ham's views. I don't really want to bash on all those evolutionists, but I don't understand how the Big Bang even would work.

 

[DerMißingno]

Personally I enjoyed listening to it and found it very entertaining. However, I'm not sure whether it was a good idea for Bill Nye to do it, for a couple of reasons.

First, there is no point in a scientist engaging in a debate with someone who ignores overwhelming evidence for any reason at all. It's the line of thought akin to a conspiracy theory; push your hypothesis because you want it to be right, then when evidence to the contrary appears, just dismiss it as a cover up.

Second, acknowledging something like creation with events like this debate could be seen to show that the scientific community considers it a legitimate theory, which it is not. Any publicity is good publicity. It's the same reasoning behind not negotiating with terrorists (obviously I'm not calling creationists terrorists, it's just an analogy), negotiating with them would be acknowledging their legitimacy, which they should not have.

On the other hand, it was interesting hearing the contrivances and artful dismissal of evidence that young earth creationists use to delude themselves into believing that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

 

[The_Pikachu]

Personally I enjoyed listening to it and found it very entertaining. However, I'm not sure whether it was a good idea for Bill Nye to do it, for a couple of reasons.

First, there is no point in a scientist engaging in a debate with someone who ignores overwhelming evidence for any reason at all. It's the line of thought akin to a conspiracy theory; push your hypothesis because you want it to be right, then when evidence to the contrary appears, just dismiss it as a cover up.

Second, acknowledging something like creation with events like this debate could be seen to show that the scientific community considers it a legitimate theory, which it is not. Any publicity is good publicity. It's the same reasoning behind not negotiating with terrorists (obviously I'm not calling creationists terrorists, it's just an analogy), negotiating with them would be acknowledging their legitimacy, which they should not have.

On the other hand, it was interesting hearing the contrivances and artful dismissal of evidence that young earth creationists use to delude themselves into believing that the earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago.

I'd like to question your view, hopefully not insulting you in any matter.
For your first point, what is the overwhelming evidence that your are talking about?
In your second point, you compared it with negotiating with terrorists. Negotiating isn't debating, correct? Debating whether or not the extremist view was correct is not acknowledging the fact that the extremist view is correct, the negative side is simply saying that they do not believe that they do not believe that the extremist view is an viable option. This is what Bill Nye is saying. Also, what proof is there that the creationist view cannot be an option?

 

[Jolene]

My main concern is why most people think this is a Reshiram and Zekrom issue. Both sides have valid arguments, and it's not one side is right the other is dead wrong. The simple fact of the matter is both sides have huge holes in their arguments. Creationists, explain the dinosaurs. Big bang theorists, explain where life originated from. Neither side can answer these questions. Us as humans will simply never know the answers to these questions unless someone invents a time machine.

This debate was simply much ado about nothing.

 

[Bulletproof Scales]

Unicorns shaped the moon. Because I eat potatoes every Tuesday I will get to ride on them when I die, in eternity. Whereas you will all forever float aimlessly on a sea of broccoli while being tormented by swarms of bats.

Let's have a discussion here, we both have reasonable arguments.

 

[DerMißingno]

I'd like to question your view, hopefully not insulting you in any matter.
For your first point, what is the overwhelming evidence that your are talking about?
In your second point, you compared it with negotiating with terrorists. Negotiating isn't debating, correct? Debating whether or not the extremist view was correct is not acknowledging the fact that the extremist view is correct, the negative side is simply saying that they do not believe that they do not believe that the extremist view is an viable option. This is what Bill Nye is saying. Also, what proof is there that the creationist view cannot be an option?

I do not wish to debate creationism with you, it would be a pointless gesture as per the reasons I stated above. There are many places where you can read about the evidence against young earth creationism without me having to list them here. Answering your second question would also lead to a debate, as my reasoning involves young earth creationism having absolutely no merit whatsoever in science.

My main concern is why most people think this is a Reshiram and Zekrom issue. Both sides have valid arguments, and it's not one side is right the other is dead wrong. The simple fact of the matter is both sides have huge holes in their arguments. Creationists, explain the dinosaurs. Big bang theorists, explain where life originated from. Neither side can answer these questions. Us as humans will simply never know the answers to these questions unless someone invents a time machine.

This debate was simply much ado about nothing.

It's okay to have some unanswered questions, the problem is that some people take it a step further and say since we can't necessarily answer some questions right now, then the answer must be a god. Hopefully answers to the life question and what happened before the big bang (if the idea of "before" even has any meaning at that point) will be answered some day, but until then I see no reason to assume that just because we don't know, it must be a divine creator.

 

[H-con]

Well, that's TP debate for you sort of.... I'm an Creationist, and like it or not, sometimes I don't believe in Ken Ham's views. I don't really want to bash on all those evolutionists, but I don't understand how the Big Bang even would work.

Big bang theorists, explain where life originated from.

I'd just like to point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Moreover, Big Bang has nothing to do with the origins of life in itself, it has to do with how the universe came into being. So if you're going to point out flaws in a theory, make sure you do it at the correct theory.

Again, as pointed out, creationism isn't science, and has nothing to do with it.

Also, what proof is there that the creationist view cannot be an option?

Well, it depends on exactly what you believe. First of, humans (and other animals) have adapted other species for their own benefit, and shaped them after need. A good example of this would be wolf -> dog, or ask any farmer of how they breed for desirable traits in livestock/crops. This of course isn't evidence for evolution as a natural process, but it's pretty clear that external pressure can drive change in a species over relatively short timespan. Moreover, evolution to adapt to for instance increased predation compared to little/none have been demonstrated experimentally (one example is in guppies, and how they change color for sexual selection).

More interesting is perhaps the long term experiment on e-coli bacteria where they adapted to use a different kind of nutrition, but only in one population of twelve original that came from the same source. This allowed that sample to sustain a much higher population. See for instance here (or wiki) for more info on that.
Of course, this is just scratching the surface, and I'm no biologist.

 

[The_Pikachu]

Big bang theorists, explain where life originated from.

I'd just like to point out that the Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Moreover, Big Bang has nothing to do with the origins of life in itself, it has to do with how the universe came into being. So if you're going to point out flaws in a theory, make sure you do it at the correct theory.

Again, as pointed out, creationism isn't science, and has nothing to do with it.

Also, what proof is there that the creationist view cannot be an option?

Well, it depends on exactly what you believe. First of, humans (and other animals) have adapted other species for their own benefit, and shaped them after need. A good example of this would be wolf -> dog, or ask any farmer of how they breed for desirable traits in livestock/crops. This of course isn't evidence for evolution as a natural process, but it's pretty clear that external pressure can drive change in a species over relatively short timespan. Moreover, evolution to adapt to for instance increased predation compared to little/none have been demonstrated experimentally (one example is in guppies, and how they change color for sexual selection).

More interesting is perhaps the long term experiment on e-coli bacteria where they adapted to use a different kind of nutrition, but only in one population of twelve original that came from the same source. This allowed that sample to sustain a much higher population. See for instance here (or wiki) for more info on that.
Of course, this is just scratching the surface, and I'm no biologist.

When you say Wolf->Dog, do you mean Wolf+Dog?? There is no evidence, at least in my knowledge, for Wolf->Dog. Also when you talked about breeding for different livestock/crops and the e-coli adapting, how does that go against an creationist's view?

 

[DerMißingno]

When you say Wolf->Dog, do you mean Wolf+Dog?? There is no evidence, at least in my knowledge, for Wolf->Dog. Also when you talked about breeding for different livestock/crops and the e-coli adapting, how does that go against an creationist's view?

I don't want to make this into a 2 against 1 thing, but H-con is not here so I will address this right now. The dog as we know it today did not exist before humans. Over time, humans selectively bred wolves, keeping and breeding the offspring that are friendlier to humans and not breeding the ones that remained feral. Over time, this led to full domestication, along with the many breeds that we have today. You can see obvious differences in dogs that were bred for a specific purpose, such as German shepherds and greyhounds.

Recently, Russian scientists have done the same thing with foxes. It took a surprisingly short amount of time (they started in 1959) before they had fully domesticated foxes. If you are interested, you can read more about that here.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

This debate is just another reminder to me that people really don't like saying "I don't know".

 

[Nero the Giant Whiscash]

This debate is just another reminder to me that people really don't like saying "I don't know".

Which is why i consider myself an AGNOSTIC because I don't know and that all i can say really.

 

[H-con]

When you say Wolf->Dog, do you mean Wolf+Dog?? There is no evidence, at least in my knowledge, for Wolf->Dog. Also when you talked about breeding for different livestock/crops and the e-coli adapting, how does that go against an creationist's view?

As far as I know, the ancestry of the dog is pretty well known to be wolf. This has been shown in for instance comparisons with genetic material.

What I was trying to say is that species can change, and sometimes very rapidly, when exposed to external "pressure". It certainly conflicts with a more static view that creationism implies, and certainly helps to make the idea of species adapting to natural environments seem much more plausible. However, the e-coli case is pretty much a direct examplification of evolution right before our eyes (bacteria are well suited for this due to their fast reproduction), but one could always argue that this is a too controlled setting (something I would disagree with). It's also worth noting that this big change in "diet" (or so to speak) is pretty drastic, and did not occur in all populations. I don't see how that's explainable by a creationist stance at all.

 

[The_Pikachu]

When you say Wolf->Dog, do you mean Wolf+Dog?? There is no evidence, at least in my knowledge, for Wolf->Dog. Also when you talked about breeding for different livestock/crops and the e-coli adapting, how does that go against an creationist's view?

I don't want to make this into a 2 against 1 thing, but H-con is not here so I will address this right now. The dog as we know it today did not exist before humans. Over time, humans selectively bred wolves, keeping and breeding the offspring that are friendlier to humans and not breeding the ones that remained feral. Over time, this led to full domestication, along with the many breeds that we have today. You can see obvious differences in dogs that were bred for a specific purpose, such as German shepherds and greyhounds.

Recently, Russian scientists have done the same thing with foxes. It took a surprisingly short amount of time (they started in 1959) before they had fully domesticated foxes. If you are interested, you can read more about that here.

Ok, I pretty much understand what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying it.

When you say Wolf->Dog, do you mean Wolf+Dog?? There is no evidence, at least in my knowledge, for Wolf->Dog. Also when you talked about breeding for different livestock/crops and the e-coli adapting, how does that go against an creationist's view?

As far as I know, the ancestry of the dog is pretty well known to be wolf. This has been shown in for instance comparisons with genetic material.

What I was trying to say is that species can change, and sometimes very rapidly, when exposed to external "pressure". It certainly conflicts with a more static view that creationism implies, and certainly helps to make the idea of species adapting to natural environments seem much more plausible. However, the e-coli case is pretty much a direct examplification of evolution right before our eyes (bacteria are well suited for this due to their fast reproduction), but one could always argue that this is a too controlled setting (something I would disagree with). It's also worth noting that this big change in "diet" (or so to speak) is pretty drastic, and did not occur in all populations. I don't see how that's explainable by a creationist stance at all.

Sure, that seems right, I guess. From an creationist stance, how is this not explainable by a creationist stance? There could be two animals in the canidae family that were created, and those canidae would breed and create an large variety of dogs.

 

[GliscorMan]

I'm going to preface this by saying that my intention is to educate, not to offend.

There are genetic components which effectively debunk Ken Ham's "family" argument. The homeobox genes.

Homeobox (HOX) genes refer to a set of ~235 genes present in every single animal species. These genes follow similar patterns within all species, and have the exact same pieces of genetic code preceding them. These highly conserved genetics refer to body parts in a similar way to how a person would code in HTML. A head section, a body section, leg sections, arm sections, etc. It's only the content after these pieces (like after a <header> tag) that differ among species. There have been experiments in which biologists removed the highly-conserved "tag" parts of the HOX gene in a fruit fly embryo and replaced them with the equivalent HOX gene extracted from a human cell. The fly developed and grew completely normally.

Source

This might seem confusing to non-biologists, which is why it isn't taught in your average course. But the connotations are clear; the genetics in all animal species shares a common ancestor.

Also, directed to the people above who believe that the origins of life is a hole in the evolutionist argument, I give you the Miller-Urey experiment.

Two scientists, way back in the 50's simulated the early-Earth atmosphere environment in a sealed, closed-system, and added heat radiation and electrical sparks (simulating lightning). This combination of chemicals, electricity, and heat actually created over 20 amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins. In addition, this experiment was adjusted in 2007-2008 to include an extra proportion of certain chemicals that are released by volcanic eruptions, because there is geological evidence of such eruptions having occurred. They managed to produce an even wider variety of amino acids.

Source

There was also a study which determined that RNA could have easily started reproducing itself by accident, given stable conditions. In addition, it is common knowledge in biology that fatty acids (such as phospholipids) naturally form bubbles similar to the cellular membranes found across all forms of life. I don't have links to these, though, because I don't remember the names of the studies.

Now, a common argument for Creationism in general is that it's technically possible. Well yes. But it's also possible that the world was created yesterday, under the same argument. Possible, but not at all probable. Similar to the chance of the molecules in my hand aligning just right with the molecules in my keyboard so that my hand falls into the keyboard, molecularly, and gets stuck. Technically possible, but statistically impossible.

 

[DerMißingno]

This debate is just another reminder to me that people really don't like saying "I don't know".

Did you actually listen to the debate? Bill Nye said "I don't know" several times. Scientists are proud to say they don't know when there is something that science has not yet been able to answer.

 

[H-con]

From an creationist stance, how is this not explainable by a creationist stance?

What are you trying to say here? In any case, a creationist view, these bacteria should surely remain stagnant. Why should they develop features that adapt to their surroundings? And why should they develop different traits seeing how they came from the same source?

There could be two animals in the canidae family that were created, and those canidae would breed and create an large variety of dogs.

There is really no evidence of this as far as I know. Why just two? Why not several? It really doesn't hold up very well if you ask me.

 

[Jolene]

I really like how Ken Ham brought up that many scientists are actually religious, such as the guy invented MRI scanners. Most people are under the impression that Religion and Science are like water and oil. That they could never mix. A person can be a scientist and still believe in a higher power. Some act as if a person believes in "the imaginary guy in the sky" and "the book of fairy tales" that their scientific contributions cannot be taken seriously.

Them MRI Scanners are quite useful if you ask me.

 

[GliscorMan]

@Jolene; I have no qualms with people believing in a higher power. I believe in a higher power. But when people tell other people what to believe, insisting that their view is the only one that can possibly be true (and is, in fact, true), when they force their beliefs to be taught exclusively side-by-side carefully reasoned observations of the natural world, when they delude themselves from what is proven to be true in favor of what cannot in any way be proven, that's when I have a problem.

Religion is meant to fill in the cracks of what science cannot prove. When people couldn't explain lightning, they turned to religion. When people couldn't explain the tides, gravity, evolution, they turned to religion. Now we can explain these things. Using creationism to explain evolution in a way contrary to science is exactly like arguing that lightning is caused by Thor smiting a giant with his hammer.

There are only a few major questions which we are currently unable to answer, and probably will not be able to answer. What caused the singularity which produced the Big Bang? Where does our sense of morals come from? How do we define consciousness, and why are we self-conscious? What is my purpose in life? These are the questions that religion is here to answer, why religion exists to this day.