TED Conversations

Carlos Marquez

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Bill Nye and Ken Ham will debate on Feb 2,2014. Who will Prevail?

On 2 Feb 4, 2014 " The Science guy" Bill Nye will square off against Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis at the Creationist Museum in Kentucky USA.

Mr. Ham will have home-court advantage and Mr. Nye will be walking into the "wolf's den" . In past debates of this type against William Craig secular debaters like Dr. Krauss & Sam Harris while very lucid & educated lack the polished delivery of Mr. Craig. IMO both Harris & Krauss did a wonderful job against D'Souza & D Chopra.

Now, is the debate a lost cause for both parties?Theists will not side step out of their box when their version of the Bible is countered against. Seculars don't accept revelation, faith & divine books as reliable evidence.

Mr. Ham stated that "Bill Nye still doesn't understand the difference between historical science and observational science -- so he may be known as ‘Bill Nye the science guy -- but he doesn't understand science correctly"

Mr. Nye has stated that:"'Creation Science' is not useful, because it can make no successful predictions about nature or the universe, So, it is reasonable to say the expression is an oxymoron, or simply: it's not science. It has no process of observation, hypothesis, experiment, then predicted outcome. A useful theory about time and organisms would make no distinction between 'observational' and 'historical' science."

For me the the "hot potato" should be served backwards,that is what will it take for both Nye & Ham to do a 180 from their positions. And that is the crux because if shown reasonable evidence I bet that Nye will regroup his thinking, but Ham can't because his interpretation of the Bible is without error, no matter what the evidence may show.

Your thoughts...

Cheers!

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 3 2014: Honestly, I'd rather see a science guy debate another science guy, such as Robert Spitzer of the Magis Institute for Reason and Faith. Rather than using the bible to talk about God's existence, Spitzer uses modern astrophysics and mathematics for the same purpose.
    http://www.magiscenter.com/reason/index.html
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2014: Andrea,
      To me science is not an atheist or a religious exercise, science doesn't aim to agree with the Qur'an or the Bible not to mention the myriad of religious dissent among established religions. Christianity must stand on faith and on its Holy Book(and one of 33,000 interpretations) above anything else-which will render its arguments as circular. Science does not confirm the Bible. Not to mention that science is by "design" falsifiable and Religion is not, if science were to "prove'" religion then the word supernatural would be-natural-
      As far as the Magis Inst.well imo is add good as Mr. Ham. All those "arguments" supported by Magis are riddled with fallacies and pseudoscience .
      Science is based on naturalism wherever that may lead,the supernatural is not in its scope.
      Think about it,take thunder, the early man thought of supernatural causes for it -God of the gaps- once mankind explained thunder -ad nauseam- mankind did not stepped back into a supernatural explanation.
      "Science proves Religion"-A la carte via Magis- and its success is based on its simplicity and the fact that the theist masses are already in agreement . Magis comes straight out of a comic book and if you were to look closer at science -as it is done- you will be able to see through the parody. Discovery Inst, Magis, Creationist Museum et al - Are propped up with ignorance and delusions.


      Cheers!
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2014: I don't know that this way of expressing the relationship between religious and scientific arguments is likely to promote a reconsideration of a prior stand, as it is on its face insulting to suggest that something that has thus far been convincing to a person is "propped up with ignorance and delusions."

        I mention this only because I believe you may want people to look critically at the positions of which they have been persuaded and the arguments that they have taken as valid.
        • thumb
          Feb 4 2014: Fritzie,
          When did we become afraid to speak? Why should we tiptoe over these issues? Notice that did not refer to a person in particular rather "institutions & organizations" is not ad hominem.
          I think you may miss my intent with my use of language-my encoding- I bear not to thread on hate, rather vigorous healthy exchange of ideas .That exchange could get emotional-it follows- but when we become afraid of expressing opinions and our thoughts, we stop progress. We stop understanding. We stop the idea that you can walk a mile in someone's shoes . Having a debate is not the same as standing on a street corner with signs and screaming obscenities.
          It is a clash of diverse backgrounds, folks that were raised under different circumstances, and have different values. But is a clash alright
          I do not seek to change someone's mind, proving myself right , or hurting someone's feelings. it's touchy,yet good ideas are born from it (try to be at one of my staff meetings,gotta have though skin!).
          We should not be afraid of language-rather-than it can be twisted and with it the ideas it carries(hence the Nye -Ham Debate).
          No twisting of ideas-No twisting the language-and all (me included) should pop our mind wide open to the fact that there could be other opinions besides your own out there -to include my view and yours-.

          In TED I've been preached to,insulted, even vague threats had been launched at me. And that is OK. I have religious Kentucky wildcat fans round me is all good... I chose to listen to understand others better(the world does not revolve around my feelings), thus increasing my learning chances & even may have a chance to exert some influence-who knows?
          The key issue is get past our emotions find out that when I say that: ..."ignorance & delusions" What are the basis for such a statement? Any merit? Am I willing to challenge my own world views?

          All else is Fluff

          Cheers!
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2014: I know you have been insulted and so forth, but that is not the only way or even the best way to wrangle about ideas. It has nothing whatsoever to do with fear of speaking but rather with effective communication if you want minds to remain open rather than to shut themselves down.

        I ask you only to CONSIDER this point of view about effective discourse. Your choices, of course, remain entirely yours.

        On a different note, here is Richard Dawkins making his case that scientists should not debate creationists: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

        Bill Nye is not a scientist in that sense, perhaps, as he has a bachelors in engineering rather than any degree or research experience in life science. From what I read online, people expect that Ham will speak with more polish and in a language much more likely to appeal to the audience at the Creation Museum.
        • thumb
          Feb 4 2014: Fritzie,
          Well, Prof Dawkins has some skin in the game, yet is up to each person to debate or not.The danger is that our creationist friends have the tendency to legislate their brand of religion onto everyone else whether they like it or not. If unchecked they will legislate rampant. Some "trimming" around the ears is necessary from time to time.

          Nye is an educator at heart and a witty conversationalist and has that engineering degree-Ham has home court advantage and a slick presentation. I'm eager to see what tactics Nye will deploy.

          BTW I've CONSIDERED (your caps Fritzie,yeah), "and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". That said i will always let my interlocutor know my intention(s). Appreciate your thoughts.

          Perhaps a weakness to Ham's argument is that "God Exists"-no God no creation et al-. Those two words alone are really loaded. Define God?, Define Existence(how is the theist using the word existence?-which God?, which Christian variant ? are Muslins wrong? why?Any dialogue about God(s) should be accompanied by an explanation that facilitates understanding without an understanding of the word "God" there is is not even a phase out to "exists" ----> Creation is unequivocally true. And that is when faith comes in! and the Sea separates in ways to attain knowledge.

          I've not met yet two theists friends in TED that agree with the word "God".

          Thanks for the link, very informative.

          Cheers!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.